36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 228
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 13, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Canadian Heritage
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PETITIONS
|
| Immigration
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1010
| Impaired Driving
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Ms. Maria Minna |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1015
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78—time allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1020
1105
(Division 425)
| Motion agreed to
|
1110
| Report Stage
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1115
1120
| Mr. John Williams |
1125
1130
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1135
1140
| Division on Motion No. 15 deferred
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion No. 16
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 38
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion No. 39
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 46
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion No. 47
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 54
|
1145
1150
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1155
1200
1205
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1210
1215
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1220
1225
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1230
1235
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. John Herron |
1255
1300
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1305
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1310
1315
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1335
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1340
1345
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1350
1355
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| JIM WILLIAMS
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| CALGARY FOOTHILLS HOSPITAL
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1400
| HARRISTON KINSMEN CLUB
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| CANADIAN CENTRE FOR MINERAL AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| TARTAN DAY
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| NATIONAL MINING WEEK
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1405
| DRUMMONDVILLE'S LÉGENDES FANTASTIQUES
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| LAND MINES
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| JULIE PAYETTE
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| CANADIAN NURSES
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1410
| THE LATE MARCEL PÉPIN
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| KOSOVAR REFUGEES
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| QUEBEC FAMILY WEEK
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| MILTON WONG
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| RESIGNATION OF MEMBER
|
| Mr. Chris Axworthy |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1420
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| ARTS AND CULTURE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1440
| MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1445
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| BILL C-77
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1450
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| NEWFOUNDLAND ACT
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1455
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| BILL C-77
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1500
| CANADIAN BEEF
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Report stage
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1510
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1515
1520
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1525
1530
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1535
1540
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1545
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1550
1555
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1600
1605
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1610
1615
1620
| Division on Motion No. 16 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 38 deferred
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Motion No. 34
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Motion No. 36
|
1625
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motions Nos. 37 and 41
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Motions Nos. 42 and 44
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motions Nos. 45 and 49
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Motions Nos. 50 and 52
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 53
|
1630
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motions Nos. 33, 35, 43 and 51
|
1635
1640
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1645
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1650
1655
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1700
1705
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Report stage
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1710
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1715
| Division on Motion No. 33 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 35 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 37 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 41 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 43 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 49 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 51 deferred
|
1740
1745
(Division 426)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1750
(Division 431)
| Motion No. 9 negatived
|
(Division 434)
| Motion No. 16 negatived
|
(Division 435)
| Motion No. 38 negatived
|
(Division 436)
| Motion No. 33 negatived
|
(Division 437)
| Motion No. 34 negatived
|
(Division 438)
| Motion No. 35 negatived
|
(Division 440)
| Motion No. 37 negatived
|
(Division 441)
| Motion No. 41 negatived
|
(Division 442)
| Motion No. 42 negatived
|
(Division 443)
| Motion No. 43 negatived
|
(Division 445)
| Motion No. 49 negatived
|
(Division 446)
| Motion No. 50 negatived
|
(Division 447)
| Motion No. 51 negatived
|
(Division 427)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
(Division 428)
| Motion No. 3 negatived
|
1755
(Division 429)
| Motion No. 4 negatived
|
(Division 430)
| Motion No. 8 negatived
|
(Division 432)
| Motion No. 32 negatived
|
1805
(Division 433)
| Motion No. 15 negatived
|
(Division 439)
| Motion No. 36 negatived
|
(Division 444)
| Motion No. 44 negatived
|
(Division 448)
| Motion No. 52 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
1815
(Division 449)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-260. Second reading
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
1820
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1825
1830
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Amendment
|
1835
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1840
1845
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1850
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1900
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1905
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 228
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 13, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth
report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Friday, April 23, 1999,
the committee has considered Bill C-64, an act to establish an
indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, and has
agreed to report it with amendments. The bill was passed
unanimously.
[English]
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the 74th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs, presented to the House yesterday, be concurred
in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present a petition signed by several hundred constituents in the
Toronto area.
The petitioners state that the current immigration sponsorship
requirements are very high for an average person to sponsor a
relative. Therefore they call upon parliament to ask the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration to review the existing
fee structure and combine the landing and processing fee into one
fee, which would lower the expense to $500 per application.
1010
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of citizens of the
general Peterborough area who are concerned about drinking and
driving.
The petitioners pray that parliament immediately amend the
Criminal Code to add mobile digital breath test units to the list
of approved instruments under the Criminal Code, that the police
be authorized to use passive alcohol sensors in impaired driving
enforcement, that the police be authorized to demand a physical
co-ordination test from any driver reasonably suspected of
drinking, and that this test be admissible in court.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition. This petition has been signed by
hundreds of people in Peterborough, Kingston and other parts of
southern Ontario who are concerned about the 18,000 Canadians who
suffer from end-stage kidney disease.
The petitioners point out that those on kidney dialysis and
those who have had successful kidney transplants recognize the
importance of the bioartificial kidney approach to the treatment
of kidney disease. The petitioners also point out that there are
inadequate kidney treatment facilities across the country and
they call upon parliament to work and support research on the
bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for
both dialysis and transplantation for those suffering from kidney
disease.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to
present the following petition.
The undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the
House to the following: that the current immigration sponsorship
requirements are very high for an average person; that
specifically maintaining an adequate income to support an
immigrant is excessive for one person to bear; and that Canada is
a multicultural country and immigrants are a great contribution
to multiculturalism in Canada. Therefore, the petitioners call
upon parliament to ask the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration to review the existing income requirements to allow
all potential sponsors to not be unduly burdened by them and
request that more than one person be allowed to sponsor the same
individual and share the responsibility of financial support for
that immigrant.
CANADA POST
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition from
hundreds of people in New Brunswick who express concerns about
the condition of work and contracting arrangements between Canada
Post and the rural mail carriers group.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition with over 2,500 signatures which highlights the
contribution that immigrants make to our great country of Canada
and the desire by many to sponsor their families.
The petitioners mention the high landing fee and processing fee
per application and they ask our government to combine the
processing fee and landing fee into one, thereby reducing the
total cost per application to $500.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am also pleased to present a
petition with well over 1,000 signatures from people of my
riding, as well as the general Toronto area, concerning landing
fees.
The petitioners request parliament to ask the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration to consider lowering the landing fee,
which they feel is too high, and to consider combining the
landing fee and the charge for administration to lower the
expense.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: Question No. 203.
.[Text]
Question No. 203—Mr. Paul Forseth:
With respect to the restoration of the Stanley Theatre in
Vancouver, what are the amounts of the federal government's
financial contributions, including low interest or interest free
loans, tax incentives or grants?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.):
Western economic diversification has provided one federal
contribution of $1.3 million through the infrastructure works
program to renovate the Stanley Theatre in Vancouver.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 23, 1998, I placed Question No. 169 on the
order paper. The question asked how many gun smugglers and
illegal gun traffickers have been identified, prosecuted and
convicted in Canada using the gun registration system.
In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written
answer within 45 days. My constituents and I have now been
waiting 169 days. Why can the government not answer my questions
in 45 days as it promised? When can I expect an answer to
Question No. 169.
1015
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I know of the hon. member's
great interest in Question No. 169 and I will follow-up on this
question.
However, in the area of petitions, we are running at well over
90%, having received several thousand petitions. In the area of
questions, we are running at 75%. Some questions involve
questioning every department of the government and some questions
only involve questioning one department of the government. I
assure the member I will follow up on Question No. 169.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, that excuse would not
apply to this next point of order.
On December 9, 1998, I placed Question No. 185 on the order
paper asking for a list of contracts between the government and
the consulting firm KPMG, Peat Marwick Thorne. Again, in
accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer
within 45 days. I have now been waiting 156 days. I have been
waiting three times as long as the standing orders require.
Why do I have to raise multiple points of order to get answers
to my written questions? The government is really interfering
with my ability to do my job. When can I expect an answer to
Question No. 185? A real serious pattern has developed here.
The government should answer within 45 days and it is not doing
so.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very
carefully to what the member has to say. I will certainly look
into the whereabouts of the response to Question No. 185.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
BILL C-78—TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, in
relation to Bill C-78, An Act to establish the Public Sector
Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service
Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence
Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and
to make a consequential amendment to another Act, not more than
one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of
the report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be
allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill; and
that, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time
ordinarily provided for government business on the day allotted
to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted
to the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings
before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the
purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for
the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration
shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or
amendment.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
1020
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1105
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| 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
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Williams – 85
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Volpe
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
1110
[English]
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of Bill C-78, an act
to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend
the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act,
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada
Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee;
and of Group No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get
into debate I would like to read this into the record.
I wish to advise the House that an error has been found in the
research underlying the ruling on the report stage amendments
proposed for Bill C-78.
As usual, when we considered the report stage amendments being
proposed, we relied on the printed copy of the bill to provide
the context for that study. In this particular case the first
reading copy of Bill C-78 dated April 15, 1999 mistakenly omits
the royal recommendation which accompanies the bill. Yesterday
we noticed a discrepancy between the printed Bill C-78 and its
listing on the Order Paper that correctly shows the bill
accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Since the record shows that a royal recommendation is attached
to the bill and this is invariably a key factor in considering
the admissibility of amendments, I asked that my original ruling
be reviewed.
Citation 596 found on page 183 of Beauchesne's sixth edition
states that the royal recommendation lays down:
—once for all...not only the amount of the charge, but also its
objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
Citation 698 found on page 207 of the same work states:
An amendment is out of order...if it extends the objects and
purposes...in the Royal Recommendation.
Thus, because of well established precedents I have concluded
that Motions Nos. 24, 25, 27 and 29 standing in the name of the
hon. member for Scarborough Southwest and seconded by the hon.
member for Calgary Centre are not in order and will be dropped
from the order paper.
I regret this confusion and I wish to apologize to the House and
particularly to the hon. members for Scarborough Southwest and
Calgary Centre for this unfortunate situation.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I find it rather distressing that you would seek to rule
out of order several motions that have been made to amend this
bill because it did not carry the royal recommendation at the
very beginning. Yet you have allowed the bill to stand because
the royal recommendation has been added at a later date.
Mr. Speaker, you mentioned that when the bill was first
tabled it did not carry a royal recommendation but that was added
at a subsequent point after these amendments were tabled, by the
way I understand your ruling. Therefore, I think—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If I may interrupt,
no, that is definitely not the case. I hope that was not the
impression made when I read the ruling.
The royal recommendation was in place. It was our error in not
picking that up later that allowed the amendments to stand. The
amendments should not have been accepted because the royal
recommendation was attached to the bill from the very beginning.
The error rests with the Speaker.
We will now proceed to debate.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I stand here
to finish my speech which I started the other day.
Of course, now the heat has been really turned up. What is
happening is absolutely shameful. The government is ramming
through legislation which does not bear the support of members of
the public.
It does not bear the support of the members most affected by
this. The government is just shamefully using time allocation so
that there will be no time for people to even talk about it.
1115
Sure, we can talk about it here, but those blinking Liberals
over there—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, blinking. I just called them blinking
Liberals, that is all I said. There is nothing bad about that.
It is as bad as I can get under the rules of the House.
We have all of those members standing up on command today,
except for one, saying, “I do not want to disobey my party
orders. I'll just vote for it”.
I have come to the conclusion that these members do that because
their own pensions depend on this. Let us stop and think about
this. If a member wants to be eligible for that gold-plated MP
pension plan, which past Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Bloc
parties set up, voted for and accepted, the member must serve for
six years. If members disobey party orders in their first term,
the Prime Minister, in exercising discipline, could simply say
that he will not sign their nomination forms. This basically
means that they would not get re-elected. They could also put
their own MP pension plan at risk if they disobey the party
orders. Consequently, because we have a majority government, we
have absolutely no way of stopping legislation which is clearly
bad.
In this particular bill we have motions brought forward in part
of the MP pension plan and other plans that say that the
government will just simply take the money back.
I know why the Liberals want time allocation. I know why they
want to jam this through by the end of the week. I know why they
do not want anyone to talk about it too much. It is because of
all the seniors who are affected, all the civil servants who are
affected and all the taxpayers who are affected by this. None of
them will have an opportunity to actually organize and get their
opposition to the bill heard here before it is a fait accompli.
That is absolutely shameful.
I am not surprised that the Liberals are doing it. I remember a
bank robbery in Edmonton not long ago. They had a getaway car
because when people take money that does not belong to them, they
do not want to hang around too long. Obviously these guys want
to grab the money and run, otherwise someone might catch on to
it. It is absolutely ridiculous what the Liberals are doing. If I
were a Liberal I would be hanging my head in shame at this stage.
We are debating the motions in Group No. 2. A lot of people do
not realize that the motions in Group No. 2 are meant to sustain
the current definition of family and marriage as it has long been
held through centuries.
The Liberal government has presented a bill which takes away $30
billion from the people to whom it belongs and is also sneaking a
revision into the bill of the definition of spouse. Instead of
calling it a surviving spouse, the government has subtly changed
it to survivor. The survivor of course is whoever one chooses,
but the bill attempts to jam through that partners in a conjugal
relationship can also be survivors.
How the dickens are the Liberals going to find out who is in a
conjugal relationship? I will give members an example. It just
so happens that my son, when he was at university for three
years, shared housing costs with another young lad. They cared
for each other and shared expenses, but I absolutely and
positively assure members that there was no conjugal
relationship.
1120
What if one of them had died during the time when they were
sharing this apartment? There could have been a benefit
involved, but not in this particular case because this involves
pensions. However, now that I think about it, I guess my son did
have some credits under the Canada pension which this could apply
to. He could say that they were in a conjugal relationship. How
would anyone be able to prove otherwise? Will the Liberals stand
on command next week if a motion is put to the House to install
video cameras in everyone's bedroom so we can see if they are
conjugating. This is so ridiculous and offensive. Furthermore,
it is in opposition to what almost every MP in the House voted
against.
In the six years since we have been here we have had a number of
occasions when these exact questions on same sex benefits have
been asked. I remember way back when one of the Bloc members had
such a motion, 10 Liberals stood in favour of it while everyone
else was either against it or absent. Only 10 Liberals voted for
it. Why are they now for it? It is because their pension plan
depends on them voting for this one. They are told how to vote
and they simply comply.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Elk Island was getting quite vociferous, and rightly
so. He was trying to point out that the government, through Bill
C-78, is overturning all the norms of society. It is allowing
through the back door changes affecting same sex marriages and so
on. It is becoming a term that is used in society every day.
When I arrived at my desk this morning I had a government
response to a petition that I tabled in the House some time ago
regarding marriage and so on. Let me read the government's
response. It states:
The term “marriage” in Canada is clear in law and is defined as
“the union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all
others”. There is no need to either enact this definition in
legislation or to amend any existing legislation. The definition
of marriage in federal law is not in a statute passed by
Parliament, but is found in what is called the federal common law
dating from 1866 British case of Hyde and Hyde v.
Woodmansee, L.R. l P. & D. 130. This case has been applied
consistently in Canada and states that no marriage can exist
between two persons of the same sex, and is void ab initio,
similar to “marriages” made within prohibited degrees of
consanguinity.
This government remains committed to supporting Canadian
families and there are no plans to legislate a change to the
definition of the term “marriage”. The definition of marriage
is clear in law in Canada and has been successfully defended
before the courts as the union of two persons of the opposite
sex.
The government says it is committed to maintaining marriage as
it is seen in the eyes of the Canadian people, but through the
back door it is ignoring marriage and is now into conjugal
relationships and cohabitation. What this long sentence means is
that any kind of sexual relationship, perverted or otherwise, is
now deemed to be the norm and will therefore qualify for survivor
benefits under this pension.
I would have thought that the government, which is here to
represent the Canadian people and uphold the laws of the land and
which tells us that marriage as defined is the law of the land as
accepted by all Canadians, is allowing that venerable, holy
institution of marriage to be watered down, defiled, changed and
become anything whatsoever.
That is a serious affront to many Canadians across the land and
to the sanctity of their marriage. As it states here, a marriage
is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others. However, in the eyes of the government that no longer
matters.
1125
We have a serious problem with single parent families in the
country. A large percentage of them are poor and rely on some
form of government assistance. Research is now telling us that
children brought up in a single parent family may not develop as
well emotionally as children growing up in a two parent family.
We are now being pressured by same sex couples to adopt children.
We now have same sex couples demanding the right of marriage. We
see the definition here saying that they want the same rights as
everybody else.
We have to recognize that people of the same sex form
associations and live together as couples, but let us not call it
marriage by any stretch of the imagination. The government is
failing Canadian society when it allows the encroachment of the
idea that any kind of relationship can be called marriage.
We are talking about survivor benefits under pension plans for
the civil service. When an employee, who was living with someone
or was married, died in his or her old age what would happen to
the person's survivor? Our society said that the survivor should
be cared for. However, we are now questioning the definition of
a survivor. Anybody who has any kind of a relationship with the
retired employee seems to be now called a survivor provided there
is some kind of conjugal relationship going on.
As the member for Elk Island pointed out, will we be installing
video cameras in every bedroom? Are we going to have sex police
around to check on whether there is some kind of conjugal
relationship going on or not. I do not know. The government has
never said and I do not think it intends to say.
When we had the lawyer from the Department of Justice and
Treasury Board before committee last week—the bill is being
rushed through by the way—I asked about the common law conjugal
relationship.
I know this is a sensitive and delicate issue that one does not
normally talk about in public, but we do have to get the facts on
the table. If two people are living common law and that common
law relationship ceases to exist before one of the persons dies
then there will be no survivorship entitlement.
I put forth the scenario of a retiree whose health is gone. One
person is living in a nursing home and the other person is living
at home. They are not cohabiting and they may not cohabit for
several years because the health of the retiree is completely
gone. One has to assume there is also no conjugal relationship.
Therefore, under the law, as proposed by the government, the
survivor would not qualify, even if the couple had been living
together for 40 years.
I posed that point to the lawyers. They told me that the courts
would probably be lenient and recognize it. Again the House is
deferring to the courts to write the laws that we know, as we
stand and debate the bill, are flawed and deficient. Under the
above circumstance, that couple would have no protection at all.
The government knows it, we know it and the lawyers know it.
The government does not know how to deal with the issue because
it is kind of technical and complex. At the same time, it wants
to extend survivor benefits to virtually every kind of
relationship we can think of. It wants the courts to figure it
out. We complained in the House about the courts dictating to
parliament and about abdicating our responsibility to write
legislation that is clear, definitive and which makes it obvious
what is meant. I think the bill is absolutely terrible.
1130
We will be debating other issues in a few minutes when we move
on to the financial side of the bill. However I wanted to put on
the record that the government says it is clearly committed to
upholding marriage. By its omission and commission it is
circumventing the whole institution of marriage. It is not
upholding it. It is allowing it to be overwhelmed by people who
do not understand the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, we have a
problem in the land, led by a government which does not stand up
for principles any more.
Our great society was built by people who came here for freedom
and opportunity. They have prospered and lived together in the
sanctity of marriage. They have raised families. They did a
wonderful job of building the country from nothing. Because the
government has no desire to uphold the principles people have
been living by for generation after generation, we are seeing the
erosion of our standards. We see that through its back door
attempts at eliminating and undermining the sanctity of marriage.
That is why we are opposed to it.
I am very disappointed in your ruling a few minutes ago, Mr.
Speaker, on the disallowance of the motions. I understand the
point you are coming from; it is just rather unfortunate that the
wrong bill was used. In closing, I hope the government would
withdraw the bill and rethink the whole issue.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the next few moments I will express my concern as
well with this group of amendments.
The government is bringing in through the back door what it does
not have the courage to do openly. It is becoming more and more
obvious as we look at this group of amendments that there is a
real problem. I have a hard time understanding how the Liberals
can sit in their seats and calmly observe and accept the whole
process that is taking place because of its serious implications.
They are faced with the questions we are asking, which I will
summarize in a few moments.
I would like to defend the definitions of marriage, spouse and
the traditional family. Unfortunately the Liberal government
says one thing and does the opposite. I have listened to what
government members have said. They have used the excuse that the
courts made them do it.
Who makes the laws in the country? Is it not supposed to be
parliament? If it is not the people through their elected
representatives making the laws in the country, we have a problem
and we had better change the system.
The Liberals say that they are defending the family, except when
they will not fight court cases that undermine it. That is at
the root of this problem. The Liberals say that they are all for
strengthening the family, except when they bring in laws to
redefine it. I say that facetiously because they say one thing
and do another.
Bill C-78 is yet another example of the Liberal government
redefining marriage and spouse in federal legislation, thereby
undermining the definition of the family which has served society
so well for thousands of years.
Bill C-78 would not only extend survivor benefits to married
couples, as it should be, but survivor has been redefined to
include couples who cohabited in a relationship of a conjugal
nature for at least a year before the death of the pension plan
contributor. I found the word conjugal 19 different times in
Bill C-78.
1135
According to the government it does not matter whether one is a
husband or a wife of a pensioner. If one is having sex with a
government employee over a period of a year and that person dies,
one is entitled to his or her pension benefits. That is what the
legislation clearly says. That is what we will be approving in
the House when we vote this evening on these amendments.
The Liberals are promoting a system whereby government benefits
will be allotted on one's sexual relationships, and not on
whether or not one is married. Is not ironic that the party of
Pierre Trudeau who said that the government has no business in
the bedrooms of the nation, is now willing to extend benefits
because of what happens in the bedroom? What has happened in the
last 20 or 30 years?
The Reform Party believes in the institution of marriage and
would vigorously defend it in Canadian law. Reform policy
defines marriage as:
That is what we stand for and that is what we believe in.
Opening up public benefits to conjugal relationship will create a
nightmare. I want to conclude with four questions which must be
answered by the government before it passes the legislation.
First, how will the government determine if a relationship is
conjugal in nature? My colleagues have asked questions about
whether it will put a camera in the bedroom.
Second, how will a survivor prove that his or her relationship
with the dead pensioner was indeed of a conjugal nature? How
will the survivor prove that when it comes to a court case or to
claiming the benefits? What will the survivor do? Will our
government now go into the bedrooms of the nation to determine
whether or not there has been a conjugal relationship?
Third, why has the government shifted from a clearly defined
test of legal marriage to a relationship that is open to anyone's
definition and therefore abuse? We now have a clearly defined
definition of marriage. Now it will do away with that and go to
anyone's definition of it. This will open the door to tremendous
abuse.
Fourth, and maybe the Liberals never even thought of it, how
many survivors will there be? The spouse and one, two, three or
more lovers who claim to have had a conjugal relationship with
the pensioner? How many people will start claiming after the
death of someone that they have had a relationship of a sexual
nature with that person?
It will be a dream world for lawyers. I can just see the court
cases coming forth as all these people claim that they slept with
a person for a year. Another person will say “so did I”, and
so on. It is absolutely ridiculous what the legislation does and
what it creates. Before we go any further I call upon the
government to answer those four questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1140
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division
will also apply to Motions Nos. 17 to 23, 26, 28 and 30.
We will now proceed to Group No. 3.
[Translation]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 31
to 33 on page 31 with the following:
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 113, be amended by replacing line 9 on
page 94 with the following:
“71. (1) The Governor in Council shall, for”
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 117, be amended by replacing lines 33
to 36 on page 96 with the following:
(1.011) In subsection (1.01), “Act of Parliament” does not
include a regulation made under that Act.”
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 167, be amended by replacing line 20
on page 142 with the following:
“80. (1) The Governor in Council shall, for”
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 171, be amended by replacing lines 24
to 27 on page 144 with the following:
(2.1) In subsection (2), “Act of Parliament” does not
include a regulation made under that Act.”
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 206, be amended by replacing line 20
on page 189 with the following:
“41. (1) The Governor in Council shall, for”
1145
[English]
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, basically the motions in
Group No. 3 relate to the concept of good governance. This large
section of Bill C-78 deals with the privatization of the civil
service pension plan, out of which the government will take $30
billion. We say that it has no right to that money, but it seems
that the government is going to ram this bill through parliament
so it can get the cash. That will still leave $100 billion in
the plan.
Over the next number of years the money will be converted from
where it now sits, which is in government debt. The civil
service pension plan carries approximately 25% of the government
debt of $579.3 billion. This money will be invested in the
private sector through private capital markets on the Toronto
stock exchange, as well as around the world if the government
continues to relax foreign content rules.
When we have a plan of that magnitude one of the fundamental
things we must put in place is the concept of good governance;
rules and requirements to ensure that the fund is safe and
secure.
Several witnesses appeared before the committee from the capital
markets and the equity markets, professional people of great
repute. They told us about good governance and how to manage
this money to get a reasonable return on behalf of the investor
without rolling the dice and perhaps losing the lot.
The concept of good governance ensures that the proper checks
and balances are in place so that no one can run away and bet the
bank.
I raise the issue of the pension fund in Orange County,
California, which was a very large pension fund of about $9
billion, only one-tenth the size of this plan. One manager of
the fund thought he was so smart that he could play the futures
market, he could play hedge funds, he could make a great career
for himself by getting a phenomenal rate of return on the
investment. One day he woke up and found he had bet the wrong
way and had broken the bank. He had pushed the whole pension
plan straight into bankruptcy because he had the authority to
make investment decisions without the proper checks and balances
and supervision to ensure that did not happen.
I think of Barings Bank, one of the great venerable banks of
London, England. It had been around for the better part of 200
years, perhaps longer. It had been around a long time by
ensuring good governance, respectability, and not assuming too
much risk as the order of the day. Two hundred years is a good
long time to thrive, prosper and to continue to do business.
That bank expanded around the world. We remember the rogue
dealer in Singapore who single-handedly destroyed the institution
in a matter of weeks because he bet the wrong way and senior
management, the auditors, the board of directors and the
shareholders were not supervising him closely enough. He broke
the bank all by himself through lack of good governance.
Last year in New York there was a capital hedge fund which just
about upset the entire capital markets of the free world because
it found it had bet the wrong way on Italian bonds versus Russian
bonds and so on, trying to grab that extra one-tenth of 1% or
maybe one-hundredth of 1%, which would be big bucks when dealing
with tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. They bet the
wrong way and it just about broke them.
I want to ensure that this plan has good governance and the
witnesses before the committee said it is absolutely imperative
that we have good governance.
1150
I recall one witness who said that his company had a large
client. They were handling a very significant amount of cash and
investments on behalf of this large client and had been given
almost unfettered rein and authority to invest any way they
wanted on behalf of the client. He felt that good governance was
so important that he imposed upon himself a semi-annual audit;
not an annual audit, a semi-annual audit; not just of the funds
under his administration, but of the procedures, the processes,
the checks and balances that he had in place to ensure that
decisions were sound, reasonable, rational and could be defended.
We are putting in place a board of managers which will be
nominated by various people. I suggested that the auditor
general be the auditor for the special audits that this bill
requires once every six years; not every six months as the
witness before the committee imposed upon himself, but once every
six years. A lot of money could be lost in six years. Once
every six years there is to be a special audit; not just a
financial audit, but an audit of procedures. Who better in this
country has the resources than the Auditor General of Canada who
does value-for-money audits of large government departments and
so on? Who better than he to do the intense analyses of
procedures, processes, checks and balances to ensure that this
fund has the integrity to handle $100 billion? What did the
government say? “We do not want to hear about motions that
introduce better governance”.
When I said “Let us take some time to talk about governance and
understand what kind of processes have been built in”, the
government was not interested. It said “Let us move on. Let us
vote this through. It is a done deal. Next clause, please”.
A great deal of supervision will be required for $100 billion of
taxpayers' money and civil service employees' money which will be
invested in capital markets. I have very serious concerns about
whether we will have the proper governance procedures in place.
What can I say? One day we may wake up and, like the Barings
Bank or the Orange County pension fund, find out it is gone.
Then we will ask: What happened? Who is to blame? The
government will point its finger at some manager, the board of
directors, the auditor or the internal accountant and say “You
are to blame” and he will lose his job. I submit that the blame
lies here if that ever happens because we were not prepared to
examine the governance issues and put them in place to guarantee
that we have the best possible governance for one of the largest
pension funds in North America. We have abdicated our
responsibility.
I was speaking a few minutes ago on the issue of morality and
now I am talking about financial accountability. The government
is not prepared to put the processes and the rules in place to do
the best it can with money which rightfully belongs to the
people. What can I say?
I would like to be able to debate this all day. I would like to
be able to talk to the auditor general and the investment
community, ask them what we should be doing and incorporate that
into the bill, but the government will not give us that
opportunity.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here
I am back today, once again, with the famous Bill C-78.
This is a huge bill, with over 200 pages, which will affect
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of employees in the public
service. I have the bill here. It is clearly a huge document.
1155
The government of the Prime Minister and member for
Saint-Maurice is imposing closure—four hours to deal with such a
huge bill—true to the Liberals' democratic style.
This bill will allow the President of the Treasury Board and
member for Hull—Aylmer to appropriate the surplus in the
pension fund of 275,000 employees, just as this very same
government has taken the $21 billion surplus in the employment
insurance fund by digging into the pockets of those with the
least, those working on hourly wage, by making it harder to
obtain EI and by artificially creating revenues because
contributions are too high compared to the benefits the plan
pays out.
So, surpluses were created, and the finance minister, the ships
minister, took $21 billion.
Today, the President of the Treasury Board is preparing to take
$14.9 billion from the public service pension fund, $2.4 billion
from the employees of the RCMP and $12.9 billion from the
pensions of the Canadian armed forces, our military. This adds
up to $30.2 billion. Bill C-78, which will probably be passed
this afternoon, will allow the President of the Treasury Board
to take $30.2 billion.
This affects 275,000 contributors. Of course, those who
contributed in the past are now benefiting from the plan.
There are 160,000 retirees and 52,000 surviving spouses
receiving benefits. These 212,000 people receive monthly
payments totalling $3.1 billion annually, while 275,000
contributors pay $1.8 billion into the plan. The difference
between what the plan takes in and what it pays out is $1.3
billion annually.
But, if the present surplus of $30.2 billion were well managed,
it would bring in more than what the government pays out in
monthly benefits. Public service, armed forces and RCMP
employees could be given a premium holiday lasting a number of
years.
I agree that this would not be a smart thing to do. But, and I
am being perfectly honest here, I do not trust the government.
I have seen how it treated the hourly workers of this country in
its reform. I have seen how it treated the BC mine workers, who
were laid off on November 1, 1997. Its track record is not
good.
What is worse, this sends a clear message to the private sector
that it can follow the lead of the government and the President
of the Treasury Board and illegally help itself to the surpluses
in employee funds. This is the message this government is
sending the private sector.
This is precisely what happened to former BC mine workers, when
their employer helped itself to part of the money in their
pension fund, leaving some of them with a very small pension
after 30 or 35 years of work. This is the sort of government we
have.
1200
In a 1998 press release, Treasury Board stated and I quote: “The
President agreed with a number of the recommendations of the
special advisory committee... [which] was the result of four
years of dedicated work by union representatives, pensioners and
government employees”.
Here we have a minister, who stated in February 1998 that he
agreed with a number of the recommendations of an advisory
committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act established
by the government, not even recognizing the negotiations
suggested in its report.
The President of Treasury Board is trampling roughshod over
these recommendations and doing what he pleases.
Gangway, he is coming through. And he will get his hands on a
surplus to which he is not entitled.
At the present time, there are no provisions for the over $30
billion that is excess to expenditures, and Bill C-78 enables the
government to get its hands on a surplus the ownership of which,
while not clearly defined, is morally the property of employees
and ex-employees, i.e. pensioners.
It is going to get its hands on the dough, and then what it is
going to do with it? It will probably argue that it invested it
to reduce our collective debt. Once again, a small group of
people will be footing the bill for all Canadians, just like the
hourly-paid workers of this country, who make excessive
contributions to employment insurance and receive very little in
the way of benefits, while the employment insurance fund has
generated a surplus in excess of $21 billion over four years.
The government stole this surplus to reduce the collective debt
and create budget surpluses for the minister of ships, thus
allowing Ottawa to spend money in provincial jurisdictions.
The government did the same thing with the millennium
scholarship program and a $2.2 billion budget. It also showed
disrespect for Quebec by giving the four Atlantic provinces
close to $1 billion in compensation for collecting the GST,
while Quebec, which has been collecting the GST since 1991 under
an agreement signed by Robert Bourassa and Prime Minister
Mulroney, did not get one single dollar. This is what we call a
double standard.
Under Bill C-78, contributions would be deposited in retirement
funds and then transferred to the Public Sector Pension
Investment Board.
Who will manage the board? The appointment process will be very
similar to that used for the Senate. The appointees, who will be
responsible for managing and administering this fund, will be
friends of the government.
The President of the Treasury Board will establish an advisory
committee of eight persons. He will, of course, appoint eight of
his friends, who will make a list of candidates—again chosen
among the minister's friends—from which the board's 12 directors
will be selected.
This is how the Prime Minister appoints his friends to the
Senate and to the superior court. The former president of the
Liberal Party of Canada was just rewarded by being appointed to
the bench in my riding.
The Prime Minister appointed to the Senate the opponent of the
Bloc Quebecois leader in the last general election, Liberal
candidate Aurélien Gill, for having been defeated by my
colleague.
He was rewarded for his sacrifice by being appointed to the
Senate until the age of 75.
1205
The President of the Treasury Board will be no better than the
Prime Minister. He too will appoint friends, who often are not
qualified to administer a $30 billion surplus.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to have a chance to join in the last dwindling minutes of
the debate on Bill C-78.
As those in the House realize, in the last hour we have seen
closure moved yet again. We are not going to have an opportunity
to go into the bill in nearly the depth that it certainly
warrants. This is getting to be a real pattern. We have heard
speaker after speaker comment on the fact that it is getting to
be far too easy for the government to use closure and time
allocation. They used to be very rare occurrences, but they are
being used more and more frequently. Every time it meets the
Liberals' expedient needs they have no qualms whatsoever about
doing this.
This whole bill had its origins in a failure of the government
to be able to negotiate a settlement with the unions and with the
bargaining agents who have control over the pension plans. Now
it is failing to use the democratic process to achieve its means.
I have always been of the mind that if your ideas have merit,
they should be able to stand up to fair and honest debate and you
will win the arguments. If the ideas come from a point of view
that has more merits than the other arguments, then what would
you be afraid of? The only time you should run from a free and
open debate is when you know there is not a great deal of
substance on your side of the argument. Then you have to take
actions which I consider to be cowardly and circumvent the
democratic process.
We are dealing with the amendments in Group No. 3. We have
spoken to Group Nos. 1 and 2. Group No. 3 gets into some of the
minutiae and detail dealing with the governance of this new
public sector pension investment fund. This in itself could take
up months and months of debate because a lot of things have been
left unresolved in the bill as it stands.
We are going to have a 12 person board governing hundreds of
billions of dollars of investment being openly invested in the
free market. We have not really scratched the surface as to what
impact that is going to have on the financial community.
Where are we going to invest this money? What kind of brokerage
fees are we going to pay? What are the brokerage fees on a $100
billion being invested and reinvested every day? I have heard
estimates that it might be $500 million to $700 million a year in
brokerage fees.
What firm are we going to use to convey these transactions? What
is the risk or the possibility of conflict of interest if we are
going to be wielding that kind of clout financially? If there
are 12 people on this board who is to say they do not have some
remote relationship with one investment firm or another? Do they
sit on another board of directors as well as the public sector
pension investment fund? The conflict of interest possibilities
are enormous. We should have dealt with that at great length and
very carefully before we jumped into this whole idea.
We will be voting in favour of Motion No. 16 which was put
forward by the Reform Party. It deals with the fact that the
minister under this bill has enormous powers moved into his camp,
things that used to be resolved in the House of Commons. The
minister can now arbitrarily make changes to the rates of
contribution to the pension fund. This is something that the
House of Commons used to do. It used to have to be tabled here
and be debated here.
It is also a breach of trust. I do not think it is
unparliamentary to say it is a breach of trust. There has been a
longstanding pact between the bargaining agents for the public
sector unions and the government that if they took pensions off
the bargaining table at negotiating time, the trade-off would be
that they would never ever unilaterally alter the terms and
conditions of the plan without bringing it to the House and
without debate, et cetera.
The Liberals said they would not do it.
That hearkens back to the early 1960s and Walter Gordon, and
maybe the current Prime Minister was part of that caucus. Those
are the people who made the deal back then. There is a
historical record with this labour pact that this would not
happen.
1210
Now they are instituting the very thing they promised they would
never do. They are incorporating it into Bill C-78. The minister
will unilaterally and arbitrarily alter the terms and conditions
of the public sector pension plan because it is given that that
right will in fact be his under this bill. Motion No. 16 seeks to
remedy this one flaw of the many flaws in Bill C-78.
We cannot talk about this bill without talking about the public
sector in general. We all know this bill will take the $30
billion surplus and all future surpluses out of the public sector
pension plans. I have said this before, but to deduct something
from a person's paycheque for a specific purpose and then to use
it for something entirely different is at best a breach of trust.
I could go further with the worst case but I will not say what it
could be if I really took it to its logical conclusion.
What will the impact be on the public sector when it finally
sinks in? In the fullness of time when seniors, pensioners and
retirees have had a chance to look through Bill C-78, these 200
pages of verbiage, what will the effect be on the public sector
and the people paying into the plan? It will be another dent in
the morale of the public sector.
Productivity is the big buzzword these days. The Minister of
Finance, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
Minister of Industry, all they want to talk about is the
productivity in the workforce. I can tell the House something
about productivity and morale in the public sector.
Public servants have had blow after blow after blow to their
morale and I would argue to their productivity or their ability
to function. It used to be that if people took a job in the
public sector they would probably take less money than in the
private sector, but they could feel good about a couple of
things.
They had a pretty good idea that some job security was
associated with it. They probably had some comfort there. That
went out the window when the government started cutting, hacking
and slashing the public sector. There were 50,000 employees out
on the street with no job security anymore. That protective
umbrella is a thing of the past. They did not have the job
security but they were making an okay wage. Then there were six
years of wage freezes. Six years without a wage increase and
they fell way behind the private sector. If they started out on
par, they fell way behind.
There are 50,000 fewer people to do the same amount of work. The
work does not go away. They are working harder and their wages
are frozen. They can barely function because the government has
taken out that whole middle band of skilled people, but they can
still take some comfort in the fact that they have a pretty good
pension. That gets used against them at the bargaining table.
The employer says, “Yes we are paying you less money, but you
have this great pension”. Now for the unkindest cut of all, the
government is going after that too.
What else is there to feel good about working in the public
sector with all these things being chipped away bit by bit until
now when morale has never been lower, when any kind of pact that
might have existed in the post-war years between labour and
management is gone? It is eradicated. The deal has been broken.
It has been violated. I would argue that we are looking at real
chronic long term problems in the public sector and this is one
more example.
I want to come back to the idea of the motions in Group No. 3 of
dealing with this massive fund, the public sector pension
investment fund. That is a lot of power, $100 billion. Twelve
individuals from all walks of life, ordinary Canadians will be
the trustees of this enormous fund.
There will be no joint labour-management trusteeship as with
most pension funds I have had any dealings with. Most employee
benefit plans have some kind of joint labour-management
trusteeship. Then at least the employees or the beneficiaries of
the plan have some say in how these things are invested and
directed. This bill calls for none of that and there is no
opportunity for them to take part in the governance of the plan.
There are no stipulations about what kind of investments will be
acceptable. We are arguing through some of our amendments that it
should be an ethical investment fund at the very least. We do
not need to take less money to have an ethical investment fund.
Frankly the ethical investment plans in the private sector are
doing as well or better than the conventional financial
instruments.
1215
We had a couple of stipulations. We wanted to make sure that no
investments made by this fund would be involved in any
environmental degradation. I think that is pretty safe. Most
Canadians would not want their pension plan polluting Lake
Ontario.
We do not want the pension plan investing in any industry that
uses child labour or follows labour laws that are substandard or
do not match Canadian standards. Most Canadians would agree with
that. No Canadian has any appetite for the economic exploitation
of children. Why do we not have an ethical plan that stipulates
these things? What about tobacco? Do we want a pension fund
that invests in tobacco and is pushing smoking on our kids? No.
The plan falls short in any stipulation of ethical investments.
Many of the motions in Group No. 3 are very valuable and we look
forward to voting on them later.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-78 before the House today
and the changes it makes with respect to pensions and other
matters. It is important to have this kind of debate so all
Canadians can understand fully what we as a government are trying
to accomplish in this all important area.
I want to talk a bit about the area of investment of funds and
management of surpluses with respect to the bill. As we have
heard repeatedly in the House, and I think it is worth repeating
once again, as a government we are trying to improve the rates of
return and reduce pension costs. That has been noted in a way
which is very meaningful for everyone who will be impacted by the
legislation.
In the past Canadian taxpayers have covered the deficits in the
plans, but the legislation will now authorize the government to
debit the existing surplus of $30 billion over a period of up to
15 years. I think that is in keeping with what the majority of
Canadians want to see happen. It is important that we underscore
that yet again today.
In addition, the independent board of directors will be
authorized to manage future surpluses either by reducing
contribution rates or by withdrawing amounts from the pension
funds. Based on the board being put in place, it is important to
note as well that it is certainly in keeping with overall
government policy.
I want to talk about same sex survivor benefits. As members
know, pension survivor benefits will be extended to same sex
partners. Federal employees who have same sex partners should
have access to the same pension entitlements and be subject to
the same obligations as their colleagues.
It is important to note that there is no radical agenda at work
here. The amendments do not redefine marriage, for example. Nor
do they legalize same sex marriage. That is not what is at play
here. It does not do much good to have members in the House
indicate that this is the case. It is not and it is important
that we speak on the record accordingly.
We are simply keeping federal pensions in line with court
decisions and trends elsewhere in the public and private sectors.
Provincial pension plans in Nova Scotia, British Columbia,
Ontario and New Brunswick have been similarly amended as have
those offered by companies such as Sears, Dow Chemical, Shell,
Levi Strauss and others.
The courts are not setting the agenda. That too is important to
understand. We believe it is for the courts to make rulings and
for the government to make policy. This is appropriate
legislative action then to eliminate a provision which has been
identified as discriminatory by the courts. It has been
estimated that the amendment will see an increase of less than 2%
in the number of persons entitled to survivor benefits under the
plans. The cost has been estimated at approximately $5 million
per year.
I also recap, based on retirement and other benefits, that the
retirement benefits will be calculated on the average salary
during the best consecutive five years rather than the current
six. Life insurance benefits under the PSSA will be improved,
including a 25% reduction in premiums. Though not part of this
legislation, a dental plan will be established for pensioners by
Treasury Board after consultation with employees and other member
representatives.
It is important to have that on record in a clear and concise
fashion which Canadians can and will understand.
1220
I will talk a bit about what it means to be a survivor and what
that term means. I will also talk a bit about the phrase,
relationship of a conjugal nature, and the Supreme Court of
Canada decision in Egan and Nesbit, a judicial ruling of which we
in parliament have to take note.
Under Bill C-78 a survivor is defined as a spouse of a plan
member at the time of the plan member's death, or the person
living in a common law relationship with the plan member for at
least one year at the time of the plan member's death.
The courts have been very clear on the issue of discrimination
based on sexual orientation. They have indicated that
discriminatory language must be removed. Under Bill C-78 words
referring to the opposite sex have been taken out. This is in
keeping with recent court decisions on the issue of providing
employment related benefits to same sex partners.
A key decision in the federal court in Moore and Akerstrom
directed Treasury Board as the employer to extend benefits to
same sex partners in the same manner as it did to opposite sex
partners living in a common law relationship. Treasury Board
could not create a separate category for same sex partners
because that would have the effect of perpetrating harmful
stereotypes.
So it is that Bill C-78 contains neutral language which draws no
distinctions between same sex partners living together and
partners of the opposite sex living together, while maintaining a
distinction between married spouses and individuals living in a
common law relationship.
Bill C-78 strikes a balance between the courts and what they
have said, what is necessary with respect to the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, and what is required to maintain the
distinction between legally married spouses and two people living
in a common law relationship. The definition of a survivor in
Bill C-78 follows the guidance provided by the court on precisely
this issue.
I elaborate further on the use of the word spouse. It is
preferable from a drafting point of view to avoid cumbersome
constructions such as repeating the words spouse and common law
spouse in the statute. The use of the word spouse as is
currently used is appropriate in the case of same sex partners as
it would misrepresent their relationship as per Iacobucci in Egan
and Nesbit. A term defined such as survivor in Bill C-78 keeps
the drafting simple.
I want to speak as well on conjugal, the recognition of common
law relationships for the purpose of survivor benefits. It has
been a feature of the public service pension plans for many
years. These types of relationships are also recognized in other
legislation both federally and provincially such as the Income
Tax Act and family law.
Generally speaking legislation does not refer to a common law
relationship. As a rule legislation sets out the test that has
to be met in order to establish the existence of such a
relationship. It is important to highlight that the courts have
provided direction by setting out the recognized elements of a
common law relationship.
Factors looked at by the courts include various elements of
cohabitation and conjugality such as a commitment of the two
individuals to each other and financial contributions to the
necessities of life, et cetera. They looked at the attitude and
conduct of each of the partners toward members of their
respective families, how the families behave toward the partners,
and how the partners present their relationship to the community.
As well, when a word has been considered by the courts, what has
been judicially said is incorporated into the meaning of the word
as used in the legislation. Courts have extended the meaning of
conjugal to cover individuals living in a common law relationship
and more recently have extended the meaning to include same sex
partners living in a common law relationship.
In Rosenberg, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal on
provisions of the Income Tax Act dealing with the registration of
pension plans, the court amended the definition of spouse which
refers to a person living in a conjugal relationship with the
taxpayer to include same sex partner of the taxpayer.
Provisions of Bill C-78 refer to “a relationship of a conjugal
nature” in order to capture the judicial meaning of conjugal in
reference to same sex partners while ensuring the bill does not
go beyond what the courts have said.
For these reasons it is necessary to define the word conjugal in
the legislation in this manner.
1225
From a legal point of view physical intimacy is not considered
the essential element in establishing the conjugality of a
relationship. Rather, from a legal point of view the courts have
focused on the existence of a committed monogamous relationship
in assessing whether a conjugal relationship exists. It is in
keeping with Bill C-78 and provides that only one person living
in a common law relationship with a plan member will be
recognized at the time of the plan member's death. There are no
provisions for the payment of more than one survivor benefit to
more than one common law partner.
I want to look at the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Egan
and Nesbit, a very important decision and one that we in the
Parliament of Canada are now obliged to follow and to recognize
in terms of what it represents. It is important to note that
under the finding of discrimination five justices of the Supreme
Court of Canada in four separate sets of reasons found that the
definition of spouse infringed section 15 of the charter based on
sexual orientation.
In conclusion, I note that this is a very important issue and
certainly one that we as a government take very seriously. In
the great scheme of things and in the great balance of fairness
and equity, it is important we make sure that Bill C-78 is put in
place in an effective manner in keeping with what Canadian
society is all about.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
always good to speak in the House when you are in the chair, so I
wish I could say it was a pleasure to be here today.
It is a beautiful day in Ottawa. There are people in tour buses
and school buses visiting the House of Commons and the Parliament
of Canada, the centre of democracy in the country. Groups of
school children and people from all over come here.
What are we doing? What did we do an hour ago? The government
moved a motion to restrict debate on a bill as important as this
one. That goes against everything that the country stands for.
It goes against some gentlemen I talked to last week in my
office in Lethbridge. They would have liked more time to have
input into the decision being made here today because they are
part of the group of pensioners being governed by this law. They
felt they were being shortchanged by not being able to have the
input they wanted.
Today is the 52nd time the government has moved closure. I can
remember when the Liberals were on this side of the House in
opposition and how they used to rail against the government
moving closure. Yet they seem to make it one of their everyday
tools. As important as the bill is, one would think some time
would have been given in the parliamentary timetable to debate it
properly and not to bring in closure.
Bill C-78 and the amendments in Group No. 3 that we are
specifically debating at this point will change how the
government can deal with the pension plans of the public service,
the RCMP and the Canadian forces. This huge group of people has
worked very hard in support of the country in all aspects. They
need to be recognized for the work they have done. They should
be able to retire in some form of security. When they see a
government sitting on a huge surplus and projecting huge
surpluses for the next number of years reaching out to grab $30
billion surplus out of their pension fund, they get somewhat
nervous, and rightfully so.
Why would a government sitting on such a huge surplus want
another $30 billion? Has it told us what it will do with the
money? Will it pay down the debt? Will it pay the unfunded
liability in the CPP that has built up? It has not told us that.
That is what makes the people who have paid into these plans all
their lives and are counting on them to carry them through their
golden years somewhat nervous.
The bill will give the government the right to seize the $30
billion surplus.
It will establish a public sector pension investment board. That
needs some looking at as well. It is yet to be seen if the House
will have a say over how that board is structured and who is
going to be on it, or if it is just going to be another
government patronage group.
1230
Employee premiums will increase from 30% to 40%. The employees
are going to fund 40% of this plan, beginning in 2004. How does
the government feel that it is entitled to the entire surplus?
That needs debate. If the government was responsible or the
taxpayers were responsible for the entire contribution, then
fine, but they are not. The employees are contributing as well
and they do not feel that the government has a right to take the
entire surplus.
The motion put forward by the Reform member for St. Albert would
force an act of parliament to be passed in order for changes to
be made to the contribution rate of the public sector pension
plan, which currently is in the hands of Treasury Board. I
believe that is a very good motion. I hope it will receive
support from the House because decisions that are made to deal
with the pension plan should be made by the House, not by the
President of the Treasury Board.
The reason for that is because of our constituents. When my
constituents come to me for answers about what is going on with
their pension fund, how can I respond to them if the decisions
have not been made by the House but by a member of cabinet?
All of these issues need to be addressed. More and more we are
seeing the purpose of the House eroded by closure and decisions
being made outside the House rather than by the elected people of
the country. The government member who spoke before me mentioned
a definition of spouse, a definition of survivor, that was
decided by the courts. More and more we are seeing the
government leaning toward the courts to make the tough decisions
which need to be established by law and should be established
here after public debate. That comes into this whole issue.
One of the reasons people are concerned about this is, if the
government balanced the budget on the backs of the taxpayers, why
is it looking at $30 billion? What does it want it for? Why is
it so eager to get its hands on it? It seems that if people pile
up more than $2 in one spot the government looks for ways to grab
it away.
Let us consider our health care system. We have 180,000 people
who are on waiting lists for health care in the country. As a
country we put $800 less per person into the health care system
than our American counterparts. We definitely have developed and
the government is supporting a two tier health care system that
is not necessary.
Again, the government is sitting on a huge surplus and it wants
another $30 billion from this pension fund. Why are some of
these things not being done? The waiting time for Canadians to
receive health care is increasing. The length of time to see a
specialist is increasing.
This all comes back to the fact that there have been severe
funding cuts to health care, while at the same time the
government is sitting on a surplus. It is looking at every
corner of its mandate to find pools of money that it can pull
back, but not explaining to Canadians and to the House exactly
what that money is going to be used for.
That is all part of the equation which boils down to the problem
that we are having with Bill C-78. The whole idea of bringing
issues such as these to the floor of the House to be debated is
part of what we are discussing today. The government has
introduced closure and members who wanted to have a chance to
debate this bill will not have that chance. People who want
information from this government will not receive it. Therein
lies the problem.
1235
I support the member for St. Albert who has worked so hard on
all of these issues and put forward some very good amendments. I
would certainly hope that members of all parties in the House
would have a look at the amendments and consider the fact that
the amendments we are proposing would make this bill far better
than it is. They would give some accountability through this
place, through elected members of parliament, to the people of
Canada. If nothing else, the issue of accountability and the
issue that decisions should be made here, not elsewhere, is very
important.
I would like to say to the people of my riding and certainly
right across Canada who are members of this pension plan and who
are concerned with what is going on that they can rest assured
that this party, regardless of the outcome of the vote, will keep
an eye on the government and keep its feet to the fire to make
sure that this pension plan is solid and will be there to help
them through the rest of their lives.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak this morning to Bill C-78 with some sadness and
some bitterness.
Sadness, because the government this morning, through the
government House leader, took a most, if not the most,
undemocratic step one can take in this House.
Sadness, because all the Liberal members voted in favour of this
closure.
I would like to take a minute of my time to pay respect to this
rapidly disappearing democracy, a minute of my speaking time so
all the elected officials in this House may reflect on the
effects of abusing democracy in this manner.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member could tell us
whether he wishes to continue his speech or whether he has
finished for the moment.
We can continue certainly afterward, if the hon. member wishes,
but he may speak only once to each group of amendments.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I will continue my speech, but
I believe silence says a lot. It is a means of expression.
I would ask your permission to finish my minute of silence. It
had lasted barely some 15 seconds.
The Deputy Speaker: This is not usual practice. Usually the
Speaker calls for a minute of silence on the death of someone,
but not during a debate. I do not think it is appropriate, and
I hope the hon. member will resume his remarks.
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think the point my colleague is trying to make today about
democracy taking a back seat is a very important one. This is
not the first time this has happened. There have been at least
50 other such occasions.
Is my colleague's request in order, under House procedure? His
allotted time is his. He has ten minutes. We are told that we
have ten minutes in which to express our views.
One means of expression is the spoken word and the other is
silence. I would like a ruling on this and whether it is
acceptable, under parliamentary procedure, for my colleague to
say nothing for one minute. That is one form of expression.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has recognized the point, but I do
not think it is usual to have one minute of silence during a
speech. The point of a speech in the House is to express an
opinion.
1240
If the hon. member wishes to stop speaking for ten minutes or
one minute or even 30 seconds during the time allotted him to
speak, he may do so with the unanimous consent of the House, but
I think one would normally make a speech in the time allotted.
That is why I have indicated to the hon. member that, if he
wishes to resume speaking, he may now do so.
I invite him to go ahead, or I can seek the unanimous consent of
the House for the hon. member to observe a moment of silence.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we are
given to understand that there is freedom of expression in this
House. Seeking the unanimous consent of the House for the point
my colleague wishes to make is a bit like seeking its approval
for what he will say and the approach he will take.
This means that, from now on, what we want to say in the House
must first be approved by a majority of members.
The Deputy Speaker: The purpose of expression in this House, as
I have indicated, is to make speeches, and the hon. member has a
right to do that. I do not believe it is normal to have moments
of silence during a speech.
One cannot, for example, ask for 10 minutes in which to say
nothing. The member must speak.
The hon. member is entitled to do this, and there is no
unanimous consent in the House for him to do otherwise. I
therefore invite him to continue. I have already made a ruling
on this issue.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder. Did my colleague use language that was in contempt of
parliament? No. Did my colleague use props to illustrate what
he was saying? No. Is my colleague inappropriately attired,
and thus deserving of expulsion from the House? No. Did my
colleague use unparliamentary language which could offend the
institution? No. Does my colleague have a right to express
himself? Is there a translation problem if my colleague decides
to remain silent for a minute?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have already made a ruling
on this point and I believe we now need to continue debate.
The purpose of this House is to hold debate, and there is time
allocated for that, not for silence. If he wants to remain
silent, let him do that in his seat, or in the lobbies, but in
the House we are here to debate.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, you have said that the purpose of
this House is to debate. How then can it be that you prevent my
colleague from taking a minute of silence, because you claim it
prevents debate, yet when the government introduces a gag
motion, which deprives us of our right—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows very
well that the Speaker is not here to answer questions. I am
here to rule on points of order.
I have already given my ruling and I ask the hon. member for
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles to continue his speech without raising
any further points of order.
Mr. Claude Bachand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: On the same point of order?
Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes. I want to know what Standing Order you
based your decision on.
The Deputy Speaker: I have made my ruling on this and that is
that.
[English]
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, you have the right to rule
us out of order, but I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
grant the request of the hon. member. I would like you to ask a
second time for unanimous consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we have one minute
of silence during the hon. member's speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for all the
kerfuffle I have caused. I thought it was an effective way to
get a message across and especially to give everyone an
opportunity to reflect.
1245
It was never my intention to treat this House as a circus or a
place of ridicule. I have too much respect for the people here
to do that.
Let us turn now to Bill C-78. I would like to provide a bit of
background. The President of the Treasury Board created an
advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act to
look at pensions within the public service.
This committee carried on consultations for four years. It
comprised members of the government, public servants and
representatives of employee and pensioner associations.
Everyone contributed effectively to this committee. The
President of the Treasury Board recognized the
committee's effectiveness.
We will recall that the president said in February 1998,
“that the government had accepted a certain number of the
committee's recommendations”. These words speak reams.
Why then, a few years later, did this government make an about
face? It totally changed its position. It did so simply
because the President of the Treasury Board sat down at the
table in cabinet, and the finance minister, also called the
ships minister, saw an opportunity to get hold of some money so
he could boast about his government's good management.
The minister finds it tempting to take from a fund of nearly
$30.2 billion the government does not contribute to anymore.
This fund is made up of the public service, RCMP and Canadian
forces pension funds, which have built up a surplus of $30
billion.
This legislation will allow the government, and particularly the
Minister of Finance, to take this $30 billion and say “Look how
good I am. I have achieved a zero deficit. Look how great it
is”. The government has made a habit of doing that. Remember the
siphoning of money from the employment insurance fund. Remember
the transfer cuts imposed on the provinces by the Minister of
Finance and this government.
Remember that, in the health sector alone, the government has
cut over $20 billion in the transfers to the provinces. Now, a
few years later, it is boasting and saying “We will reinvest
$11.5 billion of your money, the money that we siphoned off.
But we will be the ones investing your money”. The
government siphoned off $20 billion and is now reinvesting $11
billion.
This is outrageous because, without telling anyone, this
government decided to change the formula that determines
equalization payments. The new formula will use a per capita
basis, which, again, will create problems for the Quebec
government.
Under the new formula, Quebec will get less than 8% of these
$11.5 billion, while Ontario's share will be very close to 47%.
Talk about fairness.
Let us now take a look at what Bill C-78 does.
1250
In Bill C-78, the government has had another brilliant idea,
which is to form a sort of management committee to administer
the $30 billion surplus in the fund. The committee will be
appointed by the President of the Treasury Board, and the unions
and retired employees will have no say. This committee will be
packed with friends of the government, those who contribute to
its campaign fund, and those to whom it owes favours.
This is oddly reminiscent of the other agencies this government
has had the bad habit of establishing, such as ADM, the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency, the Canadian Wheat Board, and Nav
Canada, among others. When there is a problem with these
agencies and we ask a question in the House, what do the members
opposite say? They say that they have created an agency that is
responsible for its actions and that the directors are old
enough to manage the taxpayers' money. This money is being
managed by people who are not accountable. It is a disgrace.
In conclusion, I would like to remind the House that, this
morning, we have witnessed something very sad, as we do here all
too frequently. Once again, I am bitterly disappointed at what
is happening to democracy in this country.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with a degree of sadness that I rise to speak to the amendments
in Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 16, 39 and 47 at report stage of
Bill C-78.
The reason I am sad is that individuals who are at home watching
this series of speeches will be thinking that there is serious
ongoing parliamentary debate to ensure that the right thing is
being done with respect to this piece of legislation, in
particular with these Group No. 3 amendments. I am sad to say
that again the government has resorted to closure. Again the
democratically elected individuals in the House are not able to
properly debate this very important issue we have at hand.
We are primarily talking about the pensions of our valued civil
servants whether they be in the RCMP or other areas. The average
pension of these individuals is in the neighbourhood of $9,000.
The government under the guise of this legislation will say that
it is managing its resources in a more prudent fashion. We know
that the government may be looking at potentially garnishing the
accumulated surplus in these funds.
I will revert to Group No. 3 as it is imperative that we refer
to the amendments. Motions Nos. 16, 39 and 47 in Group No. 3
would give the power to set pension contributions to parliament
rather than to the President of the Treasury Board. This is a
small step toward restoring part of the role parliamentarians
should play in Canada, but it does not address many of the more
serious deficiencies in Bill C-78.
For example, this bill does not make a strong enough link
between the actuary of the fund, that is, the CPP actuary, and
the board that will oversee the investments of the fund. In
fact, nowhere in Bill C-78 is it specified when and how often the
actuary will meet with or make a report on the fund to the board
or to the government.
1255
The President of Treasury Board will have incredible powers
under this legislation with the ultimate power to set
contributions and benefit levels. Imagine the following
situation.
The government of the day decides it will have an election in a
year or two. It wants to offer the voters some election goodies
in the platform. Essentially the government wants to buy the
votes of Canadians. A nice quiet and discreet way of stockpiling
a little dough for just this occasion would be to set a pension
contribution rate slightly higher than the rate really needs to
be. In a year or two the government would have hundreds of
millions of dollars to throw around. The best part is that
nobody would have seen the government building up this nice
little slush fund.
Bill C-78 will allow the government to withdraw the current
surplus of over $28 billion from the fund over a period of up to
15 years. Any future surplus can also be withdrawn from the
fund, or the government may reduce employee or employer
contributions. What are the chances the Liberals will do the
right thing with these surpluses?
Since 1993 the Liberal government has continuously taken more
from Canadians while giving less in return. Tax revenues are at
a record high and government services are at a record low. From
1993 to 1998 the government took in an extra $35 billion in tax
revenues but at the same time cut $20 billion from health care
and education transfers, the priorities of Canadians.
There is no mechanism in Bill C-78 for parliament to hold the
government accountable for these surplus withdrawals. Let us
look at what is currently happening with the EI fund. The
government takes in over $7 billion annually within the EI fund
than the program actually consumes on an annual basis. With this
track record, I am fearful for the Canadian taxpayer that Bill
C-78 will permit the government to do this with another fund.
Currently pension and CPP contributions are linked and capped at
7.5% of salary for public servants, the RCMP and the Canadian
forces. Bill C-78 will de-link these contributions and allow for
CPP contributions to increase until 2003 while pension
contributions will remain frozen at 4%.
After 2003, pension contributions are expected to increase so
the employees' contributions rise to 40% of total contributions.
This means that public servants, the RCMP and Canadian forces
personnel could see pension and CPP contributions rise steadily
over the next five to 10 years. This could seriously erode the
progress the Canadian forces made in their quality of life salary
increases announced recently, and I will commend the government
for taking that step in the right direction.
Bill C-78 establishes a public service pension fund investment
board similar to the Canada pension plan investment board. The
fund will now invest in the stock and bond markets rather than
the Government of Canada bonds it now invests in. In fact,
maximizing returns is written into Bill C-78 which is a good
idea. This will help the pension fund achieve higher returns and
allow for lower contributions in the future.
The pension fund however will be subject to the current rules
regarding foreign assets, that is, the fund can only invest up to
20% of the assets in foreign property. This will have two major
impacts for employees and pensioners.
Their savings will not grow as fast as they otherwise could if
there were less restrictive rules on foreign content. When this
fund has assets in the $100 billion to $120 billion range, it
could end up costing nearly $250 million in forgone wealth
accumulation because historically Canadian markets have not
performed as well as the American and European markets. Even
most of Asia has done better than Canada despite the recent
crashes and meltdowns.
The second impact of the 20% foreign content rule relates to the
ultimate size of this fund. In not too many years the fund will
account for a substantial portion of the stock markets in Canada.
How will it be able to buy and sell companies without disrupting
the markets? Managers of mutual funds in the $1 billion to $2
billion range say that they have problems buying or selling some
stocks because their actions cause significant variations in the
price of a stock. Imagine the effects of a fund worth over $100
billion.
Another problem not addressed in this legislation is that of the
RCMP. The RCMP's pension funds will be invested in this fund as
well, but the Liberals as far as I can tell have not thought
about some of the problems that might arise from this fact.
1300
What would happen if the RCMP began investigating a company that
was part of its pension fund? If the officers had to choose
between shutting down the firm due to illegal activities and
turning a blind eye because $5 billion or $10 billion of their
retirement money was at stake, what would they do?
I can think of the example of YBM Magnex. It was found to be
linked to the Russian Mafia. It was delisted from the stock
exchange and by some mutual companies, and individual investors
lost millions of dollars in their portfolios.
The current Liberal government seems to have an insatiable
appetite for money, no matter where the money comes from,
taxpayers or government employees. Bill C-78 will concentrate
the power of cabinet ministers and further erode the role of
parliamentarians. If the government truly wanted to maximize
returns for retirees, it would increase the allowable limit on
foreign content in the bill and all other pension and RRSP
legislation.
Given the Liberal track record to date of record levels of tax
revenue, government expenditures being consistently higher than
estimated, and erosion of government services, Canadians will
surely pay more and get less.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak to Bill C-78. I commend the Bloc Party for attempting to
have moment of silence for the death of democracy this morning. I
thought it was a very good tribute. I stand and applaud the Bloc
for that. Although I may not agree with the Bloc in much of its
politics, the fact is that it is right on with this one. It is
the death of democracy in the House of Commons.
Over 50 time allocation or closure motions have been brought
forth by the government since 1993. Bill C-78 is over 200 pages
thick with legislation, some of which contains serious public
policy. It affects over 1.8 million Canadians currently working
for the federal service and those who are retired. It also
affects every Canadian from coast to coast to coast.
I ask again why the government is ramming the legislation
through. The only answer is that it has an awful lot to hide and
it just cannot get its hands on that money fast enough. It just
has to have it.
I can assure the House of the difference between an NDPer and a
Liberal. We will walk down the street and see a quarter on the
ground. An NDPer will pick up that quarter and give it to a
street person. A Liberal will pick up that quarter, pocket it
and not share it with anyone. That is the problem. That is the
difference between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal
Party. It is as clear as night.
Reform and Conservative members are rightfully upset by the
bill. We must understand that all the Liberals are doing is
reforming Tory policies. If Canadians want true democracy in the
country, they should elect a full house of New Democrats from
coast to coast to coast, provincially and federally. Then we
would have some solid democracy.
Bill C-78 affects every Canadian. I do not think the Liberals
have thought this one through. It will come back to haunt them
in spades. They are ramming it through when the newspapers are
full of items like Kosovo and other issues. They want it through
the House by early June. Then they will go away and say “look
what we have done, folks”.
Here is my prediction of what will happen six months prior to
the next federal election. The Right Hon. Prime Minister will
step down. His finance minister may win the nomination to be the
Liberal leader. He will then come to my riding, or a Reform
riding, a Conservative riding, the riding of my colleague from
Winnipeg Centre or the riding of my colleague from Halifax West,
with $30 billion from the EI fund. Probably the surplus in the
pension fund will be $35 billion at that point.
He will have about $65 billion in his pocket and he will ask
everyone what they need. If they need a road, it will be done.
If they need another prison, it will be done. If they need tax
breaks, it will be done. Those things will be done on the backs
of the workers, just as the Liberals did with the EI surplus.
They took $11.5 billion over five years and dedicated it to
health care.
That was the money of employers and employees. Now they will do
the same with the surplus in the Canada pension fund. This money
does not belong to them. It belongs to the workers who worked
hard for it.
1305
One of the reasons we have such a wonderful country is our
public service. Our military men and women throughout the world
work hard on behalf of Canada. What has been their answer to
them for their efforts over the years? More taxes for one thing,
absolutely. Now they are grabbing their pensions and next year
or the year after they will have to pay more into their pension
plans.
I may stand corrected on this one point, but this does not
affect MPs, members of parliament. I am not sure on that. I
will have to check into it. If it does not, obviously it is
another scandal we will have to go after the Liberals for.
On behalf of all PSAC workers in Nova Scotia and across the
country, on behalf of the RCMP, and on behalf of the military
personnel at Shearwater base in my riding, whom my wonderful
colleague from Halifax West, our defence critic, knows very well,
what the government is doing to their pension plans is an
outrage.
What an absolute disgrace that Liberals treat our military
personnel, civilian workers and public service workers in that
fashion. They are treating them with absolutely no regard at
all. A classic example was the recent pay equity decision. They
will fight pay equity tooth and nail. In most cases they are
offending the women of the country by not honouring their
commitment to pay equity.
I remind the House that it was the Liberals who said in
opposition that when they formed the government they would honour
the commitment to pay equity. They went back on their word. I
cannot say they l-i-e-d, but that is exactly what they did. They
went back on their word.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member
cannot bring in through the back door what the hon. member cannot
bring in the front door. We ask the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore to retract the word
l-i-e-d.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely retract it
and apologize to you and the House for spelling out that word.
The facts are still the facts. This is precisely what the
Liberals are doing. They say one thing in opposition and now
that they are in government they completely reverse their
proposal. No wonder the Reform, the Bloc, the Conservatives and
the New Democrats are so angry with them. No wonder even some of
its backbenchers are so angry with the government.
This will come back to haunt the Liberals big time. Mark my
words. They have an opportunity right now to retract Bill C-78
and take it back to the drawing board. The next time, if they
want to do anything with it, they should talk to the people most
affected by it: public service workers, the RCMP, the military
and the people who work in the House of Commons. They are the
ones to whom the Liberals should be talking.
It goes on and on and on. I can give many examples of how
deplorable government policies are toward working people. Bill
C-78 is just a classic example.
Following on the heels is Bill C-32, the CEPA amendments. Mark
my words, the Liberals will invoke closure on that one as well.
There were over 800 amendments to that bill. Bill C-78 should
have many more amendments to it but they were not allowed. I
have always said that the Liberals believe in a capitulated
democracy: one can say and do whatever one wants as long as one
does what they tell one to do.
I will not take up much more time of the House. My voice is
starting to wane after wailing about the government for over two
years. I ask the government to retract Bill C-78 and never to
invoke closure again on something as important to the Canadian
people.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to reiterate some of the points
my colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore
made so well in the last few minutes.
I thank the Liberals for giving me the opportunity to say a few
words today about Bill C-78. Without their dedication to
limiting democracy we might even have a few more words to say.
This is about 50-plus times we have seen closure in the House. It
makes us wonder about the capitulated democracy which was talked
about earlier.
1310
This morning we saw a bit of tinkering with some very good
amendments that needed to come forward. We heard quotes from the
member for Waterloo—Wellington and his quote was—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It must be made very
clear that the government did not tinker with the amendments that
came forward. I made it very clear when I made the ruling this
morning that it was an error made by the Chair. It had nothing
to do with the government.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for clarifying
that.
The member for Waterloo—Wellington talked about some of the
amendments which redefine spouse, survivor and so on. He
indicated that parliament was merely keeping pace with court
actions. That was quite a statement. On this side of the House
we would call that judicial activism. The government of the day
abrogated its responsibilities on politically correct or
sensitive issues to the unelected courts. It is back door
democracy.
I will refer to some comments made on Tuesday by the member for
Mississauga West. At one point he said the $30 billion pension
surplus was generated primarily through good management of the
pension fund. That is a real oxymoron when it comes to
government generated returns on anything.
I wonder how he would define the $13 billion taxpayers had to
put into the fund at one point to make up for shortfalls, or the
fact that the surplus was the result of a disastrous economic
philosophy in the 1980s to fight inflation with high interest
rates and wage freezes.
Does he also think it is good management, especially in light of
future possibilities of shortfalls or setbacks in financial
markets, for his government not only to arbitrarily seize a $30
billion paper surplus but also to have used accounting tricks to
date to drain off $10 billion before now?
He claimed yesterday that his government should identify
surpluses in each and every plan, in each and every department,
supposedly to pay down the debt. We know it will not go there.
There may be merit in doing that, but what is the government
doing instead? I direct the member to the budget figures which
show a $4 billion overdraft on the spending projections and a
debt frozen at $580 billion into the foreseeable future. If the
shuffling contingent of Liberal backbenchers from Ontario had any
clout or economic sense, they could convince their future leader
to freeze spending and actually reduce the debt rather than let
it sit there like a leech sucking the lifeblood out of the
Canadian taxpayer. It amounts to $42 billion a year in interest
payments and it is not going down.
Bill C-78 deals with a very contentious issue for which
governments across the country have never shown much enthusiasm.
Who owns any pension surplus? Since employers and employees
contribute to the original funds it would seem fair to divide it
between the two parties somehow. An alternative could be to
reduce the contributions and/or raise the benefits, or perhaps
arrange for some kind of one time payout to both side, something
that is equitable. The federal government says no. It has its
hands on the purse strings and claims the spoils for its own
purposes, whatever they might be.
Members opposite have tried to question our integrity on this
side for not wanting to back the government on this matter, but
let us look at what it is really doing. It froze wages for six
years so that anybody still in a particular job classification
has not had a raise for a while. That depresses the liability
for their ultimate pension level.
In 1996 we recognized a growing surplus sitting on the
government books, certainly not sitting in a vault somewhere.
There is no cash pool somewhere as some would have us believe.
The wizards at finance waved their magic pencils and turned red
ink to black. Some $10 billion in liability disappeared without
debate or vote, or any consultation with the people involved.
Members opposite will rightly give us credit for being in favour
of reducing government liabilities, but the way to do it is not
in the backroom, without consultation and, worst of all, in a one
shot deal which does not get to the root of what is wrong with
government, excessive spending.
We see the finance minister raid the so-called EI fund. We see
him lay claim to the public pension surplus. We see him prebook
future expenses to hide taxpayer surpluses today. That is not the
way to balance the books. That is not fair because he will run
out of unguarded accounts to claim. Inevitably there will be
dips and bumps in the road that will cause our economic
performance to fluctuate in the days ahead.
What if the interest rates rise as they seem poised to do in the
States? The burden represented by that festering debt will grow
in leaps and bounds just when the North American economy slows
down, as it surely will. At that point will the Liberals be
prepared to give up their support for porno films and kite flying
projects?
Even with Bill C-78 on the order paper the finance department
projections leave the $580 billion debt untouched. In other
words, it has not committed to subtracting this $30 billion
windfall. Left as it is, interest payments drain over $40
billion from the government's books every year before it has paid
for a single mile of road or another hospital bed that is so
badly needed.
That is not prudent or responsible. The fundamentals are not
right.
1315
Members opposite will claim that the pension surplus will be
devoted to debt reduction but we have no assurance of that. We
suspect the $30 billion will be used to finance pre-election
goodies and canoe museums. The Liberals have to admit their
track record would suggest that this is a more likely outcome
than debt reduction or that much cried about tax relief.
The opposition parties have put forward over 50 amendments to
bring accountability and openness to the process of reforming the
public service pension system. Let us be clear on this. The
pension system was out of date and the unions and the pensioner
associations agreed that something needed to be done. I am sure
they can see that it was time public service employees accepted
their share in CPP premium increases and re-balanced that
proportion between the public pension and the government pension
premiums. I understand that the employee representatives also
agreed on the mandate for the new pension investment board.
The question before us is not is it good or bad to have a new
investment regime for public service pensions or is it good or
bad that it should be done by an arm's length investment board.
The question before us is simple. Has the government been open
and up front about how it has managed the previous system? I do
not think so. Has it developed the best possible new system and
is it entitled to walk away with $30 billion to squander on
programs that it likes? I do not think so and the majority of
Canadians agree.
The Reform Party, particularly through the strenuous efforts of
the member for St. Albert, has tried to wrestle this massive bill
into some sort of responsible direction. Our amendments would
bring accountability to the process.
For example, we recommend that the board of directors of the new
investment board maintain contact with the actuaries of each fund
under their management. It sounds like a simple business
procedure. We want appointments to the board as well as those to
the investment committees to be tabled in the House. We want to
delete the clauses which allow the government to make off with
the surplus in the first place. We also want a separate act to
set the contribution rate for the RCMP superannuation fund, not
have it determined behind closed doors.
We also have a problem with the vague and unnecessary
interference with personal relationships. A number of amendments
in Group No. 2 refer to the problems that will arise as this
government fumbles its way toward accommodating special interest
lobbies.
The Liberals have attempted to socially engineer the public
service pension system by introducing the vacuous term, survivor,
249 times in this bill. They also introduced the qualification,
relationship of a conjugal nature, to modestly describe same sex
partnerships. Who will keep score? How will we stay on top of
that? Or at least that is what we are left to assume. The
terminology is vague and will no doubt open up a whole new can of
worms when some other groups decide they have been left out.
It has been estimated that the cost of recognizing same sex
partners in Bill C-78 will be quite small, but this is not the
issue. If the government wants back into the bedrooms of the
nation that it supposedly vacated 20 years ago under Prime
Minister Trudeau, then it should bring the issue to the floor of
this House, not the courts. It should offer genuine and open
debate and create legislation that addresses what needs
addressing, not drop confusing hints and ambiguous references in
this omnibus legislation.
The Reform Party recommends the surplus be left where it is to
smooth the transition to a new and better administered pension
system than we presently have. We are in favour of reduced
government liabilities and better returns for our Canadian
pensioners, but we cannot support slippery, open-ended and
underhanded methods of financing re-election campaigns that we
see in this bill.
As my colleague from Medicine Hat has said in the past on the EI
grab, why does the finance minister not just leave the money
where it is, put his hands where we can see them and back away
slowly?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what has been
happening here these past few days is utterly deplorable. I said
these past few days, but I could have said these past few months
or these past few years, because the opposition has been
subjected to closure more than 50 times. We are no longer in a
parliament where we can speak freely. We cannot even express
ourselves through silence, because of an earlier ruling by the
Chair.
When we want to talk, we are denied the right to do so. We are
not allowed not to talk, and we are denied the right to talk
long enough to make a thorough examination of the bills before
us.
What has been happening here these past few months and these
past few years—in fact, since the Liberals took office—is
absolutely appalling.
When the Liberal Party was in opposition, it said exactly the
same thing we are saying today. Does this mean that, once in
office, a party tends to forget everything it said previously?
There is no chance the Bloc Quebecois will ever be in office in
Ottawa. That is why we can debate issues very openly and we can
say there is a limit to how far one can go in showing so little
respect for democracy.
1320
I also want to mention the tyranny that exists in committees
where, once again, government members form the majority. We are
constantly being told that there will be a time limit, that the
committee will take only so much time to do such and such a
thing. The minister will appear, but will not be able to testify
for very long. This is what I call the tyranny of the majority.
It is sad that there are not more government members here today,
because I would like them to hear what I have to say.
I also thought the government House leader was extremely
arrogant this morning, when he moved time allocation.
He was smiling and laughing because he had just gagged the
opposition so that we would not have all the time required to
speak out on a bill of such fundamental importance as this one.
There are not two kinds of MPs. There ought to be just one
kind. We have all been elected by our constituents, but some
assume additional rights over the others. I am referring again
to what I call the tyranny of the majority.
I would like to pause a moment now, if I may. I do not want to
use unparliamentary language, and what has taken place here is
too irritating. If I may, I will put my papers into order a bit
and start up again in a minute. I find what has taken place
here deplorable and I would not like to get carried away. If I
may, I will take a minute to calm down.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Hon. members are well aware that we do not have to put up with
the state our colleague is in. One is not allowed to do
indirectly what one cannot do directly. When someone's papers
are mixed up, and it takes a minute to get them straight, and
that same person was the one who asked just now for a minute of
silence, we are nobody's fools, at least not on this side of the
House.
I would like us to continue, because I want to hear the
speeches.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): From time to time I
am sure there are many members in the House and certainly many
Canadians who would think that perhaps more silence from this
chamber would be a good thing. The hon. member for Saint-Jean
has 10 minutes of debate. Provided the debate goes forward, I
think we should allow the hon. member for Saint-Jean to organize
his thoughts as he sees fit.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your
solicitude. Unlike the member for Bourassa, you can understand.
If a person does not want to start using unparliamentary
language, he is sometimes better off taking a break. I have
calmed down now. I thank you for your decision.
Today, we have two motions before us. There is Motion No. 16
calling on parliament to pass an act of parliament if it wishes
to change the contribution rate to the employee pension fund.
Mr. Denis Coderre: When is he going to stop talking?
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble
concentrating because of the member for Bourassa's continual
interruptions.
Could you caution him so that I might continue?
That is one other way the tyranny of the majority is exercised
in this House. When opposition members are speaking, we are
continually being interrupted.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
They are preventing me from speaking. I too can speak while he
does. I am simply following his logic—
An hon. member: No, you do not have the floor.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Bourassa will have an occasion to participate in the debate and I
am sure other members would welcome that lucid participation.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I hope the points of order my
colleague from Bourassa raised are not going to cut into my 10
minutes of speaking time. If my colleague interrupts me for 10
minutes, I hope I will still have my time to speak.
I was talking about the importance for parliament of having a
new approach when the time comes to deduct money for employee
pensions. Although this amendment was not introduced by the
Bloc Quebecois, it is extremely important.
1325
Up to now, everything that went on with the pension fund was out
of parliament's control. When the government decides, for
example, as the President of the Treasury Board did, to play
around with it a bit, it causes distortion. Canada's parliament
is never involved in the approach and the arrangements for
consensus on what people should contribute weekly to their
pension.
What is particularly deplorable as well is that these people,
who have contributed to the accumulated surpluses we have now
have annual incomes of some $9,000. We are not talking about
huge fortunes.
Once again, I understand that the Liberal Party wants to go
after these people.
These people do not contribute to the Liberal Party coffers like
the big multinationals, the major banks and big business. The
Liberals give big business a sort of total absolution, they try
not to bother it too much. However, those who have had to pay
from the start, as I said in my first speech, are the employees
of the federal public service, women in the federal public
service, who have been denied pay equity. It is also the people
on employment insurance who have paid for the fight against this
government's deficit and debt.
There is one who quite neatly hides behind the President of the
Treasury Board—the Minister of Finance.
We never see him taking part in debates when it comes time to
siphon off some money so that the government can then say how
wonderful the Minister of Finance is for putting Canada back on
track, reducing the deficit and starting to pay down the debt.
It forgets to say that this has been done at the expense of
unemployed workers. It forgets to say that women are the losers
in the pay equity battle. It forgets to say quite a bit.
Another thing we have noticed is that the minister always sends
others to the front lines. The Minister of Human Resources
Development will be sent out to cut EI payments. The President
of the Treasury Board will be sent after this amount.
We have talked about robbing, raiding, taking over, and we have
used parliamentary terms like siphoning, but we have stopped
short of unparliamentary language. I could have crossed the
line a while ago, but for your wise ruling, Mr. Speaker.
The point of Motion No. 38, by the Bloc Quebecois, is to have
the Income Tax Act apply. Under the Income Tax Act, when there
are surpluses in certain plans, the government may decide what
to do with them, as provided in the legislation.
All the plans are listed in the Income Tax Act. There are one,
two or three exceptions, those before us today.
At the time, it was agreed, and this is provided for in the act,
that the armed forces, RCMP and public service pension funds
would not be in the Income Tax Act.
Now, we simply want to find a way to deal with the surpluses and
make sure that the Income Tax Act applies. This is merely a
question of fairness, and it also shows the employees' good
faith. They say “We want to go back to the act of 1985, and not
just for the benefits. We want to take it as it is. We also want
our pension plans to be listed in the Income Tax Act, which
provides for a mechanism when a surplus becomes significant, so
as to avoid having excessive surpluses”.
I would like to conclude with a motion. I move:
That all government members, whose government imposed a time
allocation motion on the review of Bill C-78, be prevented from
speaking during today's debate on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
1330
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand
how a government that uses closure could then say “We used
closure, you can no longer talk, but we will do the talking
now”. Before closure, government members are silent. The
opposition must do all the work. Then, when the government
imposes closure, its members want to do all the talking. I think
a review of House procedure is in order.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to be able to address the concerns we have regarding
Bill C-78. These concerns are being brought forward as we
discuss the amendments to the bill.
The important principle that we must first look at before we
discuss the amendments is how the process is being abused on this
particular issue. The government has chosen to move closure
after only a few hours of debate on a bill that is important to
all of us. The Liberals are also trying to shift the debate by
suggesting that the unions want the entire $30 billion surplus in
the pension fund. We know this is not the case. The facts of
the case are quite simple.
This fund belongs to the members of the plan. Any surplus
should be used for the benefit of the members and others
affiliated with the plan such as retirees and widows. This would
be a very desirable use for the surplus. However, the government
wants to grab the money, put it in its coffers and say it has
wrestled down the debt, but it will have been done on the
backs of those who need the plan, those who have contributed and
worked hard. It will be done in the same way the EI fund was
grabbed and taken away from those who are unemployed.
The unions are not trying to stuff their pockets, but the
government is certainly trying to stuff its pockets. The unions
want to improve benefits for their members, for the start-up
costs in the future and for any changes to the plan.
We realize there are 670,000 members of the plans affected. The
allocation of the surplus needs to address the contributions of
these members who have contributed to the plan. We often hear
the government say that the taxpayers own this money and that it
is the taxpayers it must protect. The people who contributed to
these plans are also taxpayers and we must look at their benefits
and their rights.
Another important point that is being missed is that a very
established principle is being undermined by this action. Under
the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, a principle was
established that the use of a surplus should be determined by
two-thirds of the plan members.
Bill C-78 and the Liberal's time allocation contradicts this
principle. It takes away the principle of ownership of surplus
of funds which is inherent in both public and private pension
plans. It takes away the right of the pension plan members to
determine what should be done with their surpluses. This is a
shift in the way pension surpluses would be dealt with and it
should be of great concern to all Canadians in both the private
and public service pension plans.
The fundamental principle of agreement of all plan members is a
principle that must be upheld. This is really a democratic
principle. People should have the right to say what they feel
should be done with the surpluses in their pension plans.
There are certainly some questions that need to be answered as
we look at this whole issue. What possible justification can
Liberals claim for shutting down democratic debate in parliament
on a bill of this magnitude? We have seen it happen over and
over again. We come to the House with an issue of very great
importance to all of us and before we have a chance to debate it
thoroughly and go into detail about it, the government calls for
closure.
Why has parliament not had adequate opportunity to consider the
effects on the economy or the effects on the public programs by
taking the action it is taking?
This action is being taken at a time when our country is engaged
in a war overseas in Kosovo, when matters of the highest order
are consuming the public's attention and parliament's attention.
It is at this time that the government seems to be trying to slip
this complex legislation through. The government is trying to
get this legislation slipped through the House while Canadians'
attention is diverted elsewhere.
1335
Who are we affecting with this legislation? We are affecting
the Canadian military, the people who are fighting over in
Kosovo. While they are away fighting, the government is back
here grabbing the surplus from their pension funds.
We are also affecting the RCMP, the people who we entrust to
keep law and order, to put their lives on the line fighting crime
and to do all kinds of things to protect society. While they are
protecting society, who is protecting their pension fund? It is
certainly not the government.
An hon. member: Caught with its hand in the cookie jar.
Mr. Gordon Earle: A hand in the cookie jar, that is
exactly what is happening.
Who is protecting the interests of the public servants, the
people who work faithfully day in and day out trying to give
effect to the laws and programs that parliament decides upon? It
is certainly not their employer, which is the government.
We have a lot of concerns about this particular legislation.
Does the government recognize that the bill represents a shift
in the way pension surpluses will be dealt with? It is setting a
precedent not just for the public sector but for the private
sector as well. Employers right across the country will soon be
looking at the surpluses in the pension plans of their employees
and deciding that they can perhaps take those to accommodate for
business losses. Why not? The government has set the precedent
by doing exactly that.
Does the government consider an individual's pension to be part
of the wage packet? This again draws our attention to pay
equity. What has the government done there? It is withholding
money that is due to its employees, money that has been ruled on
by a human right tribunal and money that has been determined to
be rightfully that of the employees. The government is again
failing to come to an agreement to settle those issues. This is
just a continuation of that pattern. We have very great concerns
about the approach that is being used by the government in this
issue.
Let us look at some of the people who are suffering the most
from this: widows, survivors and people in the low income
bracket. The government talks about needing this money or wanting
to take this money to improve things. Why not improve the
pension benefits for those who are receiving benefits?
Currently the average pension for a woman with 20 years service
is $9,600 a year. We know that $9,600 goes nowhere today. What
is the government doing? Instead of saying “We've got a surplus
and we should try to improve those benefits”, it is saying
“Let's take these benefits away, put it in our general coffers
and pay down the debt”.
Does the government not agree that much of the surplus was
accumulated because of the wage freeze for the public sector
employees and the delays in paying pay equity? Does it not agree
that this meant that many people received lower than expected
pensions? Does the government not agree that allowing the
federal government to take the surplus means that employees must
pay twice?
In conclusion, I would like to say a theme that I constantly say
in the House. When we are dealing with matters of this
importance, we should always be asking ourselves how we would
want to be treated if we were in the same situation. We should
ask ourselves if we are treating people with respect and dignity
when we do things that take away their right to have a say over
their lives.
If we guide ourselves by the principle that we should not do
something to others that we would not want done to ourselves, I
am sure that we would have a much better approach in terms of
governing the country.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once again I have to address the bill.
It is a sad occasion as far as I am concerned when a property
rights bill that I brought before parliament has fallen by the
wayside. However, I will save that matter for another day.
It seems that the longer the Liberals are in power, the more
often we have to point out that this is a sad day for democracy
in Canada. Bill C-78 is another one of those sad days for
Canadians under this arrogant, self-serving Liberal regime.
Canadians do not have to believe me. All they have to do is
listen to the words of a pension plan expert.
On May 2, Mic Cohen of the actuarial consultants William Mercer
Ltd. was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying:
The handling of this bill is symptomatic of the government's
failure to come clean with taxpayers and negotiate with its own
unions. It's a sad commentary on democracy. When the government
isn't prepared to agree, it bullies its way. Now I think they
are doing all the right things to fix the plan but the process
stinks.
1340
I agree with the actuary from William Mercer. The process
stinks. It stinks to high heaven. The Liberals make it stink
even worse by invoking closure or time allocation in the House to
arbitrarily take away $30 billion from a pension fund surplus
that rightfully belongs to both public servants who paid into
their own pension plan and the taxpayers of Canada who paid the
other share.
I notice there are smiles and grins across the way. This is a
serious situation for the people involved.
The government is saying that the 670,000 employees and
pensioners who are covered by this plan do not have a say in how
the surplus will be managed or spent. By limiting debate of this
200 page monstrosity in the House of Commons and through
committee, the government is also saying that it does not want
the taxpayers to find out what it is doing with the share of the
surplus paid into the pension plan by taxpayers. It has hidden
it. The government is not disclosing what it is doing with it.
The Ottawa Citizen also quoted another pension expert,
pension lawyer Fiona Campbell. She said:
This bill is unprecedented. I'm not aware of pension legislation
of this magnitude in both what it's trying to do and how quickly
it's being done with no input from the people affected.
We just witnessed, even after this quotation, that the
government has invoked closure on the bill. It is limiting
debate.
The Citizen article went on to say that Ms. Campbell is
worried that the government's actions may allow other employers
to lobby for changes that will allow them to get at pension
surpluses when they need some cash. Is this the tip of the
iceberg? Is this just the beginning? If it is this easy for the
government to just run roughshod over the rights of Canadians,
when will it do it again and who else will take that as a
precedent?
Why is this so worrying? It is because for the first time the
government will have the power to change premiums or benefits
without seeking parliamentary approval.
Why does the government need this unprecedented power? Why do
so many bills rammed through the House create new powers for
ministers to bypass parliament? The absolute power by the Prime
Minister and his cabinet make a mockery of democracy except at
election time. I guess the logic of the cabinet is why bother
going through the trouble of running a bill through the House of
Commons when we can just pass one bill to give us the power to
bypass parliament from now until forevermore. This is called
enabling legislation. It enables the government to bypass
parliament and put to regulation whatever it wishes.
Back in April of 1997, I wrote an article called “Power Grab”,
which cited a number of ways the fundamental principles of
democracy were being violated by the Liberal government. It is
getting worse not better since I put that out.
Bill Krause, president of the Social Sciences Employees
Association, told the standing committee, and I quote:
This plan is unlike any other in Canada or the world and gives
the government unique powers which could be abused in generating
revenue from its employees. In essence, it gives them the power
to tax employees.
Do members want to see the hypocrisy of the government? Let us
look at another act of parliament that the government passed to
regulate the pensions of employees working for federally
regulated industries, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.
Here is how the government requires federally regulated
employers to manage surpluses in federally regulated plans.
1345
Section 9.2(1) states:
If an actuarial report filed under subsection 12(3) indicates
that there is a surplus, no part of that surplus may be refunded
to the employer unless
(i) it is entitled to the surplus, or part of it, under the
pension plan, or
(ii) it has a claim to the surplus, or part of it, under this
section;
—and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions consents to
the refund of the surplus to the employer.
Subsection 3 is the most important. “An employer has a claim
to the surplus, or part of it, if, after being notified of the
employer's proposal for a refund of that surplus or part of it,
at least two-thirds of the persons, members or former members of
the pension plan, notify the employer that they consent to the
proposal”.
The hypocrisy. I have to ask why there is this double standard.
Why is there one set of democratic pension rules for federally
regulated industries and a dictatorial set of rules for the
federal government? Why pass one set of reasonable rules to
govern pension surpluses in federally regulated industries and
then pass Bill C-78 which gives the government total control to
do anything it wants with the pension surpluses? Why?
One more question. Why did the government not put the same
provisions from the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 in Bill
C-78? Why? Because it has the absolute power to do anything it
wants. And we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
To cap it all off, the government has made sure the secrets of
how it handles or mishandles pension surpluses remain secret.
Bill C-78 denies the auditor general's conducting an audit of
the board's investments. The pension investment auditors will
not have the power to report to parliament and the board will be
exempt from access to information laws.
A couple of hours ago I asked the government some questions.
They are on the record. I do not think I have to repeat them. In
fact I do not have time to repeat them. It is refusing to answer
these questions. We are supposed to have a debate here and not
only does the government invoke closure on this and limit the
debate, but it does not even answer our questions. It does not
even have the courtesy to reply to the very serious questions we
ask. I have just asked another series of questions. I think it
is about time the government came down off its high horse, became
a little less arrogant and responded to our questions.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand
to speak against the amendments in Group No. 3. Each one is a
frivolous amendment and does not help either the interests of the
employees or the interests of the taxpayers as a whole.
I remind my colleagues that whenever there is a deficit in the
pension plan, it is the responsibility of the government to make
up for the shortfall. The government is guaranteeing that the
pension fund will remain there for the employees in the public
sector.
I do not understand what the fuss is all about. Even what we
have before us is pure estimation that the liability of the
government will be close to $96 billion over the next number of
years, while the pension fund has been estimated at $126 billion.
If there is a problem tomorrow, who is going to make up for the
shortfall? Is the opposition going to write a cheque to pay for
the shortfall?
After all, whose money is it anyway? Who has contributed to the
pension fund in the first place? The employees put in up to
about 7.5% and the government matches the balance. There is one
thing for sure. If the percentage of contribution is 70:30,
60:40 or 50:50, right off the bat one would say if there is a
surplus, that surplus should be shared equally by the employees
and the employers.
That is in theory if that is the case.
1350
Here we have something completely different. We have a
situation where the government is absolutely on the hook, no
matter what, under any circumstances. If there is a shortfall,
if there is a problem, the government will have to come up with
the shortfall. It will have to ensure that every public servant
is guaranteed to have his or her pension for as long as they are
eligible.
That is sound, good economics. That is sound, good social
policy on the part of the government to do what it is doing and
frankly what it should have done a long time ago.
I agree with those in the community who are asking for
clarification in terms of what it is we should do from here on
in. That is exactly what Treasury Board is trying to do with this
proposed legislation. It is trying to clarify things once and
for all so there will be no grey area whatsoever. We know what
we have at this point, we clear it out and we start down the road
again. As a result of that, everyone will know what his or her
responsibilities are. Everyone will know what his or her rights
are. We will move forward.
To stand and say that the $30 billion belongs to the employees,
I think is being unfair to the taxpayers of the country. They
were the ones in the first place who put out the cash, including
the employees of the government, including those who are eligible
for the pension.
Frankly, if we were to look at the proposal by the minister he
has been quite forthcoming and pragmatic in his approach in
trying to deal with some of the issues that have not been dealt
with over the years.
To say that we have something which in our estimate could be $30
billion and we have to jump in and put our hands on it is unfair.
It is totally uncalled for. In fact this money, as the
government is planning to do, should remain in the public coffers
because it belongs to the public. The employees of Canada should
be guaranteed security and a right to access their pensions, and
they are. No one is taking anything away from them. It is the
opposite. There have been a number of improvements.
The President of the Treasury Board has gone out of his way to
accommodate those who are calling on the government to have a
proper mechanism to equally and collectively manage the funds and
the pension benefits. If someone were to say, “I will call for
better management and administration of the public service
pension fund, a joint administration of that”, we are quite open
to it. What some colleagues on the opposite side of the House
are asking for is absolutely ridiculous and no one in their right
mind on either side of the House would go for it.
We are unnecessarily delaying the passage of the bill by putting
amendments that have nothing to do with the facts. A good number
of those amendments are based on fiction and on wild imagination
that somewhere somehow this money belongs to someone. Yes it
does. It belongs to us collectively as taxpayers. It also
belongs to the public servants.
No one is saying it does not belong to the public servants, but
it belongs to the public servants as taxpayers of the nation and
not as individuals. As individuals they are entitled to their
pensions no matter what. No one is going to take more than what
they are entitled to and no one is going to take less than what
they are entitled to.
To that extent I am at a loss to hear some of my colleagues
calling for things that are unwarranted, uncalled for and asking
the government to do things. It is irresponsible to ask for
them.
The President of the Treasury Board is doing the absolutely
responsible and right thing. I commend him for that. I would
like to see the proposals he has implemented as quickly as
possible so the representatives of the employees and the
government can work together collectively in a partnership to
better manage the pension funds for generations to come.
1355
The House should reject unequivocally every one of the
amendments in this package. Let us move on with the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a few
minutes. Are there any members who would wish to debate for
about two minutes on the bill? Otherwise we could get started on
Statements by Members just a little bit early.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am assuming that I will get the rest of my time after
question period.
I want to say very clearly that this bill which the government
has moved closure on will affect Canadians from coast to coast
for years to come and it will not be in a positive way. This
bill will cause more confusion, more anger, more disappointment
in that years to come than any other bill in the last two years.
I can guarantee that simply because the Liberals are letting
through the side door and the back door and through the roof what
they are saying up front. It is a camouflage bill. It totally
distorts something which is true and historic to Canada.
I have presented hundreds, not dozens but hundreds of petitions
to the House which this bill completely ignores. I want to use
an analogy. In the town where I lived as a boy there was a store
and on the front it said “Men's Clothing”, but what went on
inside the store? Bootlegging. What this bill does—
The Speaker: I always hate to interrupt these lively
debates. Nonetheless we are going to proceed to Statements by
Members and the hon. member will have the floor when we return
after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
JIM WILLIAMS
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure today to honour a great Canadian from my riding of
St. Catharines, Mr. Jim Williams. Well known for his hard work
and dedication, Mr. Williams is the area director for the Niagara
region office of Human Resources Development Canada.
Jim Williams was recently honoured with a nomination for a
Public Service Outstanding Achievement Award and was invited to
Ottawa to meet with Canada's Governor General, His Excellency,
the Rt. Hon. Roméo LeBlanc. This award recognizes a sustained
and exceptional performance of duties and accomplishments by
senior public servants and is considered the most prestigious
public award.
Mr. Williams' nomination for the Public Service Outstanding
Achievement Award is a testament to the leadership role he has
taken at Human Resources Development Canada.
For his commitment to public service, for his tireless efforts
in the St. Catharines community and for the difference he has
made in the lives of so many, we honour and thank Mr. Jim
Williams.
* * *
CALGARY FOOTHILLS HOSPITAL
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to report a shocking story of violence being done to
innocent human life, the sanctity of conscience and freedom of
the press.
We have recently learned that at the Calgary Foothills hospital
there are procedures being performed known as genetic
terminations which are really eugenic infanticide. The hospital
routinely induces premature labour of mothers whose unborn
children are suspected of having some imperfection. These late
term babies are delivered only to be left to die without medical
attention or nourishment. In one case an attending nurse has
described how an apparently viable baby was left for some 12
hours without care until it died.
According to hospital documents that I have obtained, nurses
with moral objections are forced to participate in these obscene
acts.
In an effort to cover up this scandal the Foothills hospital
obtained a court order requiring the magazine that broke this
story not to report on its details.
I have asked the attorney general and the Calgary police chief
to investigate whether these procedures violate the Criminal
Code's homicide provisions and they have agreed to do so.
While there are those in this current culture who would seek to
kill the imperfect, infanticide is still against the law.
* * *
1400
HARRISTON KINSMEN CLUB
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Harriston Kinsmen Club, a service club in the town of
Harriston, located in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington, recently
celebrated its 40th anniversary.
This club does a great deal of fundraising and its efforts,
which include helping to create much needed park and recreational
facilities, contribute greatly to the community.
Like many other community groups and volunteers the people in
this club in particular contribute significantly to the fabric of
Canadian society. They make our communities a better place in
which to live.
I urge all Canadians to support their community service clubs. I
congratulate the Harriston Kinsmen Club for the many
contributions it has made to our community over the past 40
years. We wish it many more years of success.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN CENTRE FOR MINERAL AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources and member for
Wascana, Saskatchewan, visited Val d'Or and Malartic yesterday
to announce that an additional $2.5 million dollars would be
added over three years to the Canadian Centre for Mineral and
Energy Technology.
The money will be used in the CANMET mine laboratory in Val d'Or
for research on innovative ways to extract gold from narrow
veins.
In many cases, the small regional mines lack the resources to
develop new technology that would enable them to work more
efficiently. CANMET can work with them to develop and adapt
technologies meeting their particular needs and help them reduce
production costs and remain in business.
Canada is a world leader in the field of mining. CANMET helps
make Canada the place the rest of the world turns to for
innovative mining technology.
We can become the best in the world in the development,
production, distribution, use and exploration of mining products,
abilities and technologies.
* * *
[English]
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on April 1, 1999, as Canadians celebrated the birth of our third
territory, Nunavut, 19 newly elected members sat for the first
time in the Nunavut Legislative Assembly.
Today those members resume their seats to begin the business of
governing the new territory. As Nunavut takes its place in the
Canadian federation our colleagues in government have many
challenges and opportunities ahead of them.
With a fast growing population to represent, spread across two
million square kilometres, their priorities include addressing
social and housing problems, employment opportunities, health and
education concerns. These members have an incredible opportunity
to shape the direction of their territory, creating a brighter
future for their constituents.
Allow me to send our territorial colleagues best wishes on their
first day of business in the legislative assembly. May they
govern wisely and govern well.
* * *
TARTAN DAY
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in support of the St. Andrew Caledonian Society to ask for
recognition of Tartan Day every year on April 6.
April 6 has special significance, for on that day in 1320
Scottish nobles gathered in the Abbey of Arbroath and pledged to
defend their land from persecution and foreign dominance.
Swearing even to cast aside their King, Robert the Bruce, if he
should falter from the principles of self-determination and
freedom, this declaration is one of the earliest expressions of
the rights of humanity to a peaceful, productive and secure life.
From the first contracts granted in Nova Scotia, or New
Scotland, in 1621 to the present day, the Scots have played a
major role in the founding of this nation.
The declaration of April 6 as Tartan Day will recognize not only
the events of history in supporting the right of people to be
free from oppression, but will also recognize the significant
contributions of the Scottish people in the exploration and
foundations of Canada.
* * *
NATIONAL MINING WEEK
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is National Mining Week, a time when we recognize the major
contributions of Canada's minerals and metals industry to our
quality of life.
[Translation]
With its some 1,500 mining and exploration companies in over 100
countries, Canada is a recognized world leader in the
sustainable production of metals and minerals.
[English]
We rank among the world's top five producers for some 16 major
mineral commodities. Canada's industry is environmentally
friendly, socially responsible and a major user of high tech
products and services.
[Translation]
The mining industry currently offers highly specialized jobs to
women and men throughout Canada, especially in its remote and
rural regions.
[English]
Last year the Canadian minerals and metals industry contributed
over $26 billion to our economy, employed more than 360,000
Canadians and generated some $45 billion in export earnings for
Canada.
I invite hon. members to join with me in celebrating the
accomplishments of this important sector and to salute the men
and women who have helped to make the Canadian mining industry a
world leader.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
DRUMMONDVILLE'S LÉGENDES FANTASTIQUES
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Friday
evening at the annual Quebec tourism award gala where the Grands
Prix du tourisme québécois were handed out, the gold Lauréat
national award in the category of tourist development and
innovation went to Drummondville's Légendes fantastiques.
In its first season, this production involved the efforts of 300
volunteers, 150 of them as extras, and entertained a total
audience of 43,000. This is one more example of the artistic
contribution to the already exceptional economic boom in our
region.
On behalf of my fellow citizens, I would like to thank all those
who took part in this outstanding production, whether behind the
scenes or in the spotlight. I would invite everyone to drop by
Drummondville this summer and enjoy Légendes fantastiques in its
second season.
My congratulations to its directors, and best wishes for a good
summer.
* * *
[English]
LAND MINES
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the first meeting of state parties to implement the convention on
the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer
of anti-personnel land mines and on their destruction took place
last week in Mozambique.
Tribute was paid to those countries which spearheaded this
humanitarian security cause and Canada was noted for its courage
of true leadership.
Experience warns us that it can take decades to remove these
life destroying mines once conflicts have ended. I have seen
firsthand the excruciatingly labour intensive procedure that
demining entails, prodding every square metre of soil 600 to 700
times. There are tens of millions of these mines to remove
worldwide.
Casualties in war are 80% civilian. Too many are land mine
victims, even after conflict ends.
We must free this world of these abominable, evil weapons so
that we can limit the suffering of civilians, make the world a
safer place and enable those affected areas to become liveable
and productive once again.
* * *
JULIE PAYETTE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to wish Canada's next astronaut a
successful voyage.
Julie Payette, Canada's newest star in the sky, will blast off
on May 20 in the space shuttle Discovery, bound for the new
international space station.
A mission specialist, Julie will be using her engineering and
technical skills to assist in building the new orbiting facility.
She will be part of a crew of seven who will add a pair of cargo
doors to the station as it orbits 400 kilometres above the earth.
Julie, a native Montrealer, is a most outstanding individual. An
award winning engineer who speaks several languages, an
accomplished classical soprano, an athlete, a trained jet pilot
and a sparkling personality, she exemplifies the best that Canada
has to offer.
I say good luck and bon voyage.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the Reformer on the opposite
side has his facts all wrong.
This week the member for Dewdney—Alouette incorrectly stated
that I asked for an audit of the RCMP. That is hogwash.
The fact is that it was the mayors of the greater Vancouver
regional district who requested the audit.
I have a suggestion for the member for Dewdney—Alouette. He
should form a new party that is neither Reform nor the united
alternative. He should be the founding member of the huff and
puff party.
* * *
CANADIAN NURSES
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, nurses
recognize their part in creating and maintaining quality health
care.
Nurses traditionally and even today are predominately female.
As a result, they have had to fight for wages that truly reflect
the value of the service they provide.
Nurses are not personal care hostesses, as Premier Ralph Klein
suggested a few years ago. They are professionals, dedicated and
committed to the well-being of human kind.
Nurses everywhere have been made to suffer as a result of
government cuts to health care. They suffer from workload
fatigue and are stressed from worry over how to deliver quality
care with limited resources. They are denied job and economic
security by the casualization of nursing positions. Is it any
wonder we are facing a nursing shortage?
Governments and employers have a responsibility to foster
environments and work conditions that promote a quality of life
for nurses. That is a sure way of increasing entrants into
nursing programs, of enticing nurses back into the profession, of
recruiting nurses and, finally, of retaining nurses.
Let us begin to repair the damages by offering nurses decent
wages and working conditions.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
THE LATE MARCEL PÉPIN
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were
saddened yesterday to learn of the untimely death of Mr. Marcel
Pépin, ombudsman for the CBC French network.
After an illustrious career at Le Droit, La Presse and Le
Soleil, Marcel Pépin gained still more recognition as the first
chairman of the Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec.
After heading Radio-Canada's radio news services, he went on to
become vice-president of French-language radio, and then ombudsman
in 1997.
Just recently, Ombudsman Marcel Pépin gained attention for his
painstaking report in response to a complaint against
Radio-Canada by the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada
concerning the events surrounding the Asia-Pacific summit in
Vancouver.
Marcel Pépin was passionately interested in politics and an
independent soul. He was a staunch and untiring defender of the
freedom to inform and the right to be informed, as well as a
great believer in the importance of maintaining a relationship
of independence and non-interference between journalists and
those in power.
Marcel Pépin, you will be greatly missed.
* * *
KOSOVAR REFUGEES
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week,
the Canadian and Quebec governments met and put aside their old
jurisdictional quarrels to properly welcome Kosovar refugees.
For over a month now, these refugees have been experiencing the
pain of having been forced out of their homes, villages and
homeland. Deprived of shelter and exhausted, thousands of people
still managed to reach refugee camps. Canada then invited some
of them to settle here, and quickly provided humanitarian and
material assistance.
This week, the Quebec government announced the concrete measures
that it will take to welcome Kosovar refugees. These efforts on
the part of the Canadian and Quebec governments make all
Quebeckers proud.
We wish a warm welcome to these women, men and children, and we
hope they can resume a normal life here, in peace and serenity,
while waiting to go back to Kosovo.
* * *
QUEBEC FAMILY WEEK
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I am pleased to
recognize Quebec family week.
The purpose of this week, whose theme is “My family, my roots: a
lifelong strength”, is to invite Quebeckers from all origins to
celebrate the strength of their family network, to renew
privileged relations with their close ones, and to cultivate
family spirit.
In this international year of older persons, let us rediscover
the value of intergenerational contacts and relations. Whether
we are talking about adoptive or natural families, the family
remains a powerful lever, an infallible denominator to which we
go back at one time or another during our life, to find
strength, love and support, and to give back some meaning to our
life.
I encourage all families to celebrate the strength and richness
of the family unit, and I hope that this week will be one of
harmony, mutual support and solidarity between generations.
* * *
[English]
MILTON WONG
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to announce the election of Milton Wong as
Chancellor of Simon Fraser University. He is the first Canadian
of Asian origins to be elected to that post. He follows closely
Bob Lee, who recently completed his mandate as Chancellor of the
University of British Columbia.
Milton Wong's career as an investment counsellor, a founder of
the Laurier Institute, Science World, the Vancouver Dragon Boat
Festival and the World Chinese Entrepreneurs Convention has
involved co-operative action with all of Vancouver's cultural
communities.
His election as chancellor reflects the values of cultural
diversity and the creative dynamism of the new pluralistic
society that has emerged in British Columbia.
The Speaker: I have been requested to save the last
statement for one of our colleagues, the member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
* * *
RESIGNATION OF MEMBER
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, with these, my last words in this House, I would like to
take the opportunity to thank the constituents of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, and before that Saskatoon—Clark's
Crossing, and the hundreds of workers in election campaigns who
granted me the privilege of being a member of the House for
almost 11 years. It truly has been a privilege to be one of the
301 members who come here to serve the people of Canada.
I also extend my thanks to the House of Commons support staff,
people like Tom, J. P. and Ray, who really make this place work,
to my own staff over the years, and to my present staff, Mike,
Adrian, Doris and Erika, in particular.
I thank members on all sides of the House for their many
courtesies over the years and for their many friendships.
Lastly, I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and each and every
member of the House for the privilege of working with them, as we
all, each in our own way, strive to make Canada an even better
place in which to live.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
drunk driving kills thousands of Canadians every year, twice as
many as homicides. Thousands more are injured. Yet the
government is introducing only half measures to deal with this
tragedy.
Reports indicate that the government is against the police using
hand held sensors to detect drunk drivers. Apparently it would
rather stick to the good old usual smell your breath, walk a
straight line approach that is not exactly science.
Why is the justice minister against police using this reliable
tool to fight drunk driving?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member undoubtedly
is aware, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has
been studying the issue of impaired driving for some time.
In fact I anticipate a thoughtful and detailed report in which
members of the official opposition have participated. When I
receive that report I will review it and I will respond.
As I said earlier in this week in the House, all of us
understand the scourge of impaired driving and we will do what we
can to prevent it.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
studying and reports will not save lives. We are going into
summer and we know that is a horrible time for carnage on our
roads with drunk driving.
Unless the government acts now we will probably continue to see
the death rate rising as a result of drunk drivers. There is no
time for political delay. We need tougher laws now. We have
studied and we have reported long enough.
Will the justice minister commit now to passing new tough
anti-drunk driving legislation before the House rises for the
summer?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated on
this matter, I await the report of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.
I understand members of the official opposition have been
working on this report. I actually think it would be somewhat
contemptuous of me today to pre-empt the work of that committee.
I look forward to receiving it.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we were asking for a commitment before the House rises.
Another thing we talked about in that report, and one of my
colleagues brought it forward in the first place, was that we
needed to lower the blood alcohol level from .08 to .05. That is
the standard in 10 European countries and Australia. It seems to
be working. Transport Canada said that if we lowered the limit
to .05 it would save more than 500 lives a year. I dare say that
would be worth it.
Let me ask a question of the justice minister again. Why will
she not take the advice of her own government officials and the
standing committee and commit to getting this thing done before
summer so we would save lives?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already said twice
today, I look forward to receiving the report of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I will take very
seriously that which is recommended by the standing committee.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister. She said
three times that she anticipates the report, that she awaits the
report.
When we were asking some reporters this morning about where they
got the leaked report, they said they received it from the
minister's office. It was a senior Southam reporter who said it
was leaked from the minister's office.
The minister's staff has seen the report. They know we have a
unanimous report of the committee. All parties have agreed. We
do not totally agree with everything that is in the report but we
said we would compromise. A half a loaf is better than no loaf
at all. We want the report to be in the House.
Will the minister commit to tabling a bill, when we come back
after our recess next week, which we will pass quickly in the
House?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the
hon. member gets his information but he should check it.
In fact I have not seen the report. I have to say I find it
deplorable that there are those who choose to treat the House of
Commons with contempt and leak the contents of a standing
committee report. Because I respect the House of Commons I will
wait to receive the report and I will respond at that time.
1420
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this is not about a leaked report. This is about
drunk driving.
The minister knows her staff has told people. They have been
involved in this. We did not leak the report. We do not leak
reports like the other side.
This is about drunk driving. The government has delayed it
since the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley brought
it into the House in 1995.
Will the minister commit to bringing a bill to the House which
we will support and pass in one day when we come back after our
recess next week?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I commit to do upon
receipt of the standing committee report on impaired driving is
to review it very seriously.
I have said before in the House that all of us on this side take
the scourge of impaired driving very seriously. I look forward
to the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights. I know it has worked very hard on this report. Hon.
members of the opposition have worked very hard. When the report
is tabled in the House, I will respond.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has often said that he has final responsibility
for the integrity of his cabinet.
According to Canada's information commissioner, the Minister of
Human Resources Development deliberately contravened the Access
to Information Act, an act of parliament, for political ends.
Does the Prime Minister think a minister should be able to
contravene an act of parliament with complete impunity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am satisfied with the explanation the minister gave yesterday.
There has been a sharp increase in the number of access to
information requests. Responding to all these requests takes
time and staff. Unfortunately, there was a delay. It was not
caused by the minister. Nothing can therefore be held against
the minister.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is an all too convenient excuse.
According to the National Post, the commissioner said he had to
threaten to go to the federal court to have the minister's
office release the information that it had received 74 days
earlier for authorization.
How can the Prime Minister accept his minister's explanations
that the error was an honest one, when the information
commissioner had to throw his weight around and even threaten
the minister with legal action before he would finally conform
to the legislation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is completely
inaccurate.
No investigator ever came to my office with any request
whatsoever. I categorically deny it.
This is a tempest in a teapot. The whole thing is absolutely
clear and transparent. The files were given to the journalists
as requested. The opposition is saying my office held them up.
The files were in my office for 12 working days.
Also, the opposition is saying that my office delayed them
because I did not want this to come up during the debate in the
House. The debate took place in early February, and the file
arrived in my office on March 24.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister often refers to his ethics
counsellor as the ultimate tool to evaluate the behaviour of his
ministers.
We now have a situation where, in the opinion of the information
commissioner, the Minister of Human Resources Development
violated an act of parliament to protect himself from political
damage.
Since the defence strategy used by the Minister of Human
Resources Development is to feign indifference and to plead
carelessness, would the Prime Minister not be well advised to
submit this case to his ethics counsellor?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the commissioner never said that
I violated the act. This is totally absurd.
The word “defy” was used in reference to my office. There is
some confusion in the letter between my department and my
office. My office received the document on March 24, while the
debate took place in the House during the first week of
February.
This is a tempest in a teapot created by people who are looking
for winning conditions for a referendum, people who are
systematically harassing Quebec ministers in this government.
This is a case of Quebeckers going after Quebeckers, as has been
the case all too often in our history.
1425
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner is not a
Quebecker. He is a person mandated by the federal government to
do a job.
We know that the Prime Minister has a tendency to protect his
ministers excessively, as was the case with the former solicitor
general, who revealed confidential information while travelling
on an airplane. However, what the Minister of Human Resources
Development has done is much more serious. He violated the act
for a political gain.
How can the Prime Minister protect a minister who violated an
act of the federal parliament for over two and a half months,
and who only complied with that act under extreme pressure,
under the threat of legal proceedings?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I again categorically
deny that a commissioner's investigator came to my office. This
never happened. The fact that the National Post wrote this does
not mean it is true. Bloc Quebecois members should learn that
the National Post is not the most reliable source of information
in Canada.
Second, the information commissioner said the law may have been
defied in my office. The fact is that the file arrived at my
office on March 24, while the debate had taken place in the
House during the first half of February. This is a tempest in a
teapot. They are desperately trying to achieve the winning
conditions for a referendum that three quarters of Quebeckers do
not want.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister dismissed the head tax on refugees
as a little problem. Yet the Canadian Council for Refugees has
documented that the head tax imposes on refugee families a
vicious cycle of hunger, hardship, exploitation and despair.
Why does the Prime Minister not show a little compassion, show a
little leadership, and scrap the head tax on refugees once and
for all?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is no
head tax in this country.
Second, I think the Prime Minister was right to say that the
leader of the New Democratic Party tried to raise an issue that
is not an issue.
We are in a situation right now of an emergency evacuation. We
are so proud about the welcoming of these people into the country
by all Canadians. We all know that they want to go back to their
country so the problem does not exist.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Council for Refugees has made it clear that it is a real
issue, a serious issue. The UN High Commission on Refugees has
condemned it. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has condemned
it. Even the Liberal Party has condemned it. In fact the
Liberals described it at their convention as “a heavy burden for
those seeking to integrate themselves into the Canadian
economy”.
If the Prime Minister will not listen to anyone else, will he
listen to his own party and scrap the head tax on refugees trying
to rebuild their lives in Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the
difficult situation in Kosovo we did not see any political party
in the country making political points on the backs of refugees.
I am really disappointed by what is going on right now. We are
working for these people. Canada is one of the most generous
countries of the world.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in a
preliminary report, a copy of which I received on the weekend, it
is recommended that the Minister of National Defence cut our
reserves from 51 units to 20 in the infantry, from 15 units to 7
in the artillery, and from 17 units to 10 in the armoured units.
The government has already cut the military from 80,000 to
60,000.
Is the Minister of National Defence going to cut our reserve
forces or not? According to the parliamentary secretary
yesterday in the House the decision rests with him.
1430
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of cutting the
military further.
The matter of reserves restructuring has to be noted in the
context that we are still operating under the same reserves
structure we had during the second world war. A lot of things
have changed and there is a need for an update on it. Indeed,
reservists, honorary colonels, people who I am sure the hon.
member is concerned about, were involved in drafting this
particular proposal which is now before us. At this stage it is
only a proposal. There has been no decision made about it. I am
happy to look at this proposal and other proposals.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
record now shows that the minister is not going to adopt any of
the recommendations that are in the report. I am so pleased to
hear that. That is just what he said. He is not going to cut
the reserves whatsoever. Is that what the minister is telling us
today? Because how could he possibly consider the cuts that are
recommended in that report which would absolutely devastate the
reservists in Canada?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of cutting the
reserves. However, there are a lot of other recommendations that
deal with modifications, updating, reform for the reserves and
re-roling of a number of the units. I consider all of those
proposals to be valid for examination and I will examine all of
them.
* * *
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has an opportunity to restore public confidence in
the judiciary. Supreme Court Justice Cory is retiring.
Canadians, legal scholars and even provincial ministers of
justice want a more open process. “Judges should be known to
the public as much as possible ahead of time”, stated retired
supreme court Justice La Forest.
It is time to open up this pre-charter process. Will the Prime
Minister take action and bring nominees to a parliamentary review
before appointing them to the highest court in the land?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not want to do that because we have been well
served with the system we have at this time. I do not want to
import an American system that would not work as well.
One of the pillars of our system is the separation between the
judiciary, the executive and parliament. It is the way that we
guarantee the freedom of the people. I do not want people to
come here and have to testify and expose their lives and after
that go to the bench as they do in the United States. We do not
want that system because we want to protect the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting that even retired supreme court justices are
calling for a more open process. Why is this government so
averse to public scrutiny and accountability?
The current closed door process clearly does not have the
backing of Canadians, especially in this era of increased
judicial activism. What is it about a parliamentary review of
potential appointments to one of the most powerful institutions
in our country that the Prime Minister is concerned about? What
is it about consulting parliament that offends the Prime Minister
so much?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting
that the official opposition continues to try to undermine
important federal institutions like the Supreme Court of Canada.
The official opposition quotes numbers from various studies.
What it does not tell us is that in fact in those same studies
Canadians have told us that they have overwhelming confidence in
the Supreme Court of Canada as an institution of impartiality and
integrity.
I do not think anything speaks more eloquently to the quality of
appointment to that court.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
refresh the memory of the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The information commissioner's letter read in part as follows:
“However, the file was sent for approval on January 28.
Departmental officials took 74 days to agree to the release of
all the material requested. The minister's office put its
interests ahead of those of the applicant and defied the
legislation throughout this period. This is completely
unacceptable”.
1435
The Speaker: The hon. minister may reply if he wishes.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois
said that my office had deliberately held up certain information
in order to prevent it from coming out during a debate in the
House.
What I am saying is that the debate took place during the first
half of February, but the document did not reach my
office—because my office is what we are talking about—until March
24. It remained there for 12 working days.
I have already told my own office that I found 12 working days
too long, and I can assure the House that we regret the delay.
We have taken steps to correct the situation, and the documents
were provided to the journalist in question.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding that the minister is responsible for his
department, by virtue of ministerial accountability. If he does
not know that, there is a problem.
How can the minister now try to divest himself of all
responsibility, when never before has such a serious direct and
unambiguous accusation been made against a government minister
as that made in the letter from Canada's information
commissioner? This has never happened before.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, despite the histrionics of the
members opposite, I never said that I was not responsible for my
department. But they said my office was aware of this matter
since January 28, and I am saying that it was not.
My department has received 50% more access requests. We are
taking steps to correct the situation. The delay is decidedly
regrettable, but it was not intentional. We have already taken
steps to address the situation.
But it is truly a tempest in a teapot, and I think the Bloc
Quebecois members have motives entirely different from those
they are claiming. They are much more—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
* * *
[English]
ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first taxpayers funded Bubbles Galore, the sex fantasy film
that won the Freakzone International Festival of Trash Cinema
award. What an honour. Today we learned that the taxpayer will
also fund The Girl Who Would Be King, a drag king adventure
that is due out in September. Two days ago the minister said
that it was the Mulroney government's fault for approving this
kind of flick, but The Girl Who Would Be King, which is no
doubt another Oscar award winner, was approved by a council
appointed by this government.
Will the minister accept responsibility for this decision? Will
she do something to ensure Canadian taxpayers are not subsidizing
the pornography industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I want to underscore that last year the Canada
Council funded approximately 15,000 organizations, artists and
writers to help build the culture of this country. Obviously as
the minister responsible, I do not think the member would want a
situation where the minister decides what films and what books
are supported. I can underscore for the hon. member that the
Canada Council has assured me it will be doing a revision of its
conditions to ensure all applications are respectful of the
public purse.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I appeal to you my
colleagues once again to please let us hear the answer on one
side and the question on the other.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general recently stated that when it comes to giving
grants, the federal government has a very poor track record. He
said that there are “problems in compliance, weaknesses in
program design”—which is the problem here—“and instances of
poor control”. In other words, taxpayers' money is being spent
where no one ever intended it to be spent, and these films are a
prime example. Even the minister said that she is concerned
about the government funding for this kind of movie.
If the minister is genuine in her concern, will she rewrite her
department's guidelines for giving funds to the Canada Council?
Will she move today to cancel this latest grant which is going to
help out the Canadian pornography industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have not seen either of the films in question.
I can repeat that there were 15,000 artists, writers and
filmmakers who were helped last year by the Canada Council. I
can underscore for the hon. member that the Department of
Canadian Heritage does not write the guidelines. The guidelines
are written by the Canada Council precisely because successive
governments and successive politicians have understood that it is
not up to a politician to determine what is art.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development tells us that he was not
informed before the month of March, and that the debate took
place in February.
How can he explain to us that his department received the
request on January 28? Normally, a minister is responsible for
his departmental employees, responsible for his department.
Today he is trying to play the wise guy by telling us “We got
the information in my office only in March. The department has
nothing to do with me”. He says that, even if they got the
request on January 28. He is the one responsible for his
department.
How is it that he did not answer?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member, the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois, or at least the pseudo-leader, is
still not ready to be part of a government.
I am totally responsible for my department. I have 25,000
employees under my responsibility, moreover.
What the leader of the Bloc Quebecois referred to was my office.
He brought my office into question. I am responsible for my
department. I have already said the delay was regrettable. What
I said was that this was brought to the attention of my office
only in the month of March and that there were no wrong
intentions in connection with providing the documents to the
journalist.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
prefer not to be like the minister if governing means doing so
with disdain and carelessness, and playing the wise guy in the
House.
When he tells us that his office is not involved, I would reread
again for his benefit what the letter from the information
commissioner said “The minister's office put his interests
before those of the requesting parties and has defied the law
all this time.” This seems to me to be pretty clear.
Could he tell us, when he claims that no one in the information
commissioner's office had come to see him, how it can be that
the commissioner refers to April 12, a request—
The Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no investigator ever came to my
office. There is a distinction between my office and my
department, that is clear.
I can assure the House that there is a big difference, but I am
responsible for my department and I am very proud of it. We are
going to improve the situation. Moreover, we are one of the top
departments when it comes to complying with the rules on access
to information.
The adjectives used by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois in the
introduction to his question and the personal attacks to which I
was constantly subjected by the Bloc members are another thing.
They claim to be here defending Quebec but there is a constant
anti-Quebec attitude from these people who are here to promote—
The Speaker: The member for Calgary Northeast.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is sending 800 Canadian troops over to Macedonia.
The trouble is it will take two months to get there and guess
what? They are going to have to hitch a ride across the ocean to
get over to the Balkans.
The chief of defence staff admitted in his last annual report
that Canada has limited lift capacity for heavy equipment. The
defence minister can see for himself the problem. I ask the
defence minister, when is he going to buy or build the necessary
ships that our troops desperately need?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not need a large capacity ship on a
regular basis. To spend $1 billion or $2 billion on a ship that
might get used once every five years would be a waste of
taxpayers' money. The Reform Party of course knows how to waste
taxpayers' money.
Let me tell the House that all of our allies will use commercial
ships as a means of getting their heavy equipment into different
theatres. In fact, during the Falklands war the British used
commercial ships to get all its equipment and its troops into the
Falklands area.
There is nothing unusual about NATO countries doing this. We
are spending the money in the best way for the taxpayer.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the truth of the matter is that this government has cut billions
of dollars out of the defence budget. It has literally laid to
waste the troops and their capacity to move around the world.
Instead it resorts to rent a ship to get our equipment over
there.
I am going to ask the defence minister again, when is he going
to commit to building or buying the necessary ships to move our
troops and equipment around the world?
1445
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what the hon. member is
saying in view of the fact that his party wanted to cut still
more money out of the defence budget.
Now he wants us to build a ship that might get used once every
five years or so. That is not practical. All our partners in
NATO use money in the most efficient and effective way possible
and that is what we are doing.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-77
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Association des propriétaires d'autobus du
Québec, it takes an average of 20 passengers per bus to make a
regional service cost effective. On some routes, carriers
report no more than five passengers on average.
Does the Minister of Transport intend to increase fourfold the
fares of buses used by students, seniors and people living below
the poverty line so regional lines will survive his unreasonable
deregulation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague opposite is mistaken.
The intent of this government and the bill is to establish a
national framework to permit standardization in the area of
safety, the main criterion of trucking and bus transportation
businesses, and to standardize it across Canada.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
The Building and Construction Trades Council, along with the
AFL-CIO, have been concerned for some time about the
implementation of a fair wage policy by the Government of Canada.
On behalf of the thousands of workers affected, can the minister
tell the House what the status is of our fair wage policy and
when specifically the fair wage schedules will come into effect?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I became Minister of Labour, a majority of members
of parliament asked me to make fair wages one of my priorities.
I can inform the House that new regulations are being drafted.
In late June 1999, in the provinces where there are no current
wage schedules, Statistics Canada will conduct surveys to collect
information to establish fair wage schedules.
The good news is that fair wage schedules will be in place in
the fall of 1999 at the same time as the revised regulations.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister of Indian affairs told the House
that the charter of rights and freedoms applies to all Canadians.
The question is: Does it apply to all governments?
The Constitution says the charter applies to the federal and
provincial governments but it is silent on its application to the
proposed Nisga'a government.
On what authority does the minister believe the charter applies
to the Nisga'a government?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will quote to the House
from Dr. Joe Gosnell, the president of the Nisga'a people. He
said, “We are not prepared to be marginalized by any political
party in the country. We want to be a part of this great country
of ours, to take part politically, socially, economically.
That's the basis of the treaty”.
The Nisga'a are Canadians and the charter applies to all
Canadians.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the charter is an instrument for checking the powers of
government over individuals and the Constitution is clear. The
charter applies to the federal and provincial governments. It is
silent on the proposed Nisga'a government.
On what authority does the minister believe the charter applies
to the Nisga'a government?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the expressed intent
of all three signatories to the Nisga'a treaty that the
Constitution and the charter of rights do apply to the Nisga'a
people.
It is the intention of the government to ensure that is
reflected in the enabling legislation that will accompany the
treaty when it is presented to the House.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, three days
ago the Minister of Transport assured the House he would not slam
the door on any reasonable suggestion from anybody at yesterday's
grain transportation meeting in Winnipeg. However, he did just
that by ruling out of hand any independent accounting of current
handling costs for moving prairie grain.
A dozen western farm organizations had unanimously requested that
as a first step but the minister slammed the door in their faces.
1450
How does the minister justify that decision?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the background documents
that we released, he would know that Mr. Arthur Kroeger, a very
eminent former public servant who will be our facilitator, will
have a number of issues to look at in his mandate, including that
of costs.
Mr. Kroeger can examine costs and the railway data, but we do
not need a full costing review that will take nine months and
delay the whole process.
Is the NDP more interested in delaying the process and lining
the pockets of lawyers, or is it interested in getting a
solution?
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, given the
fact that the government has been sitting on the Estey report for
five months now, it is a fairly feeble excuse.
The minister should simply stand up in his place and admit that
he and the government have bought the Estey report lock, stock
and barrel. They are not only refusing a review of costs, but
they are stating that Mr. Estey's report is a compass for the
future, a compass, I might add, that is pointed directly at the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Why is the minister so eager to emasculate the role of the board
and force ever higher grain transportation costs onto the backs
of beleaguered prairie farmers?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accuses us of sitting on the report.
What we were waiting for was feedback from the various sectors
that are affected, something the hon. member and others in the
House have been urging us to do. If we had moved any faster we
would have been accused of ramming this through.
The government accepts the basic framework of Justice Estey, but
we realize that a lot of work has to be done to make those
recommendations come into force and to implement them to the
benefit of all, especially producers. The goal for the
government is to ensure that the producers get a better stake and
more money out of any reforms.
* * *
NEWFOUNDLAND ACT
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, back
in 1949, the Canadian Constitution, then known as the British
North America Act, was amended by the addition of Newfoundland's
Terms of Union with Canada. That amendment is now known as the
Newfoundland Act, and section 44 says that Canada will provide
for the maintenance in the province of Newfoundland of
appropriate reserve units of the Canadian defence forces which
will include the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. That is in the
constitution.
Will the minister not agree that a constitutional amendment
would be needed to eliminate the Royal Newfoundland Regiment
which is actively being considered by DND?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing any amendments to the
Constitution or any amendments to the Newfoundland Act. I am
merely looking at a proposal that comes from a number of
reservists themselves and people who are looking at reforms to an
institution that has not been changed since the second world war.
As I have indicated previously, I will look at all those
recommendations and any other recommendations. I am certainly
not proposing any reduction in the size of our reserves or the
size of our military overall, or anything that would involve
anything akin to what the hon. member is talking about in terms
of the change in the Newfoundland Act.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, let
me remind the minister that a constitutional amendment would be
needed.
Even though Newfoundlanders make up a disproportionately large
percentage of the Canadian Armed Forces, our per capita share of
defence spending is lower than the Canadian average. That means
we receive less than our fair share of the economic benefits
associated with the presence of military units in our province.
The Minister of National Defence talks about elimination. What
about amalgamation? If the minister decides to amalgamate the
forces, would he not agree that a constitutional amendment would
be needed?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing any constitutional
amendments. The member is talking about a very hypothetical
situation.
I think Newfoundlanders can be proud of what they contribute to
the armed forces of the country. They contribute in great
numbers to both the regulars and the reserves. They have a proud
tradition and a proud history, both under Newfoundland prior to
1949 and since becoming a part of Confederation. I want to
maintain that great pride they have and which we should all have
in their contribution.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian defence and aerospace companies are very concerned about
recent restrictions that have been placed on them by the United
States government which could threaten as much as $5 billion of
our exports.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs advise the House on the
current status of this very serious issue and the prospects for
an early resolution of the matter?
1455
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
On April 22 I raised the matter with Secretary of State Albright
and we came to an agreement that there would be a 120-day period
of review.
Since that time, we have consulted with Canadian industry to
register their concerns. In fact, we have a team of officials in
Washington today who are raising those concerns directly with
their state department counterparts.
We have also agreed that we would look at a review of our own
export permit regulations to ensure there is no diversion of
sensitive technologies or transfers of technologies. I think
that will satisfy, in large part, the American concern in this
matter.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for the first time in Canadian history we learned the Government
of Canada is prepared to violate the Constitution and expropriate
British Columbia property at Nanoose Bay. The premier's office
has advised me that the federal government has rejected all
offers to settle this dispute.
I have to question the Prime Minister's judgment if he thinks
this is the answer to his western alienation committee.
Instead of threatening B.C., will the minister sit down face to
face with the premier of British Columbia and move to resolve
this dispute through negotiation, not expropriation?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made every effort to bring about
a negotiated settlement of this matter. We have been working on
this for two years. We have been taking the case to the B.C.
government saying, “We need this for national security”. This
testing range has been in operation since 1965. It is vital that
we continue to use that seabed.
We have not been able to come to a settlement with the B.C.
government. We have been more than generous in attempting to
come to a resolution. If we cannot get a resolution by the 11th
hour and 59th minute, expropriation will then be necessary.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-77
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in addition to
franchising Via Rail lines, the policies of the Minister of
Transport will eliminate the cross-subsidization of bus lines,
which allows regions to have such services.
Since the people in the regions are likely not to have access to
either trains or buses, is the Minister of Transport not
contributing through his policies to emptying the regions?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the aim of this government is to improve the passenger
rail system, especially in Quebec. The hon. member is mistaken.
Our aim is to improve the situation.
The report by the Standing Committee on Transport contained
recommendations in this regard. We accepted most of them and
they were supported by all members, including the member
opposite.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, media
reports indicate that the Yugoslav army may be withdrawing from
Kosovo and there is concern that large movements of troops in
convoy may attract bombing by NATO.
If the Yugoslav army is in fact leaving Kosovo, what is the
government doing to ensure that these troops can withdraw without
being bombed? I would also like to know what the government is
currently doing to bring us closer to a diplomatic solution for
peace?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week, along with the Russians and the other
members of the group of seven, we put together a seven point
peace proposal which included a commitment for the Yugoslav
troops to withdraw. However, they had to have a verification of
that withdrawal to make sure it was happening.
If there are unconfirmed reports we will certainly be glad to
look at them. However, there is a whole package and part of that
package has to make sure that the protection of the Kosovars, the
refugees going back, is guaranteed. That is part of the package
and it has to be looked at as a total package.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of National Defence has just said that he could be
re-roling units. That means amalgamation, therefore loss of
units, loss of their history, and losses for communities across
Canada.
Is the minister really serious about considering such a drastic
move?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not understand what
re-roling means. It does not necessarily mean amalgamation. It
could mean that a unit that has been an infantry unit could
become a unit doing another kind of function.
We have to look at what total functions we need to support the
Canadian forces both in the regulars and in the reserves in terms
of the operations we have today and in terms of our 1994 white
paper on defence policy.
Re-roling could mean that they could carry on in a different
function in support of the total army concept.
* * *
1500
CANADIAN BEEF
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Canadian beef is recognized as top quality beef and enjoyed
around the world. Canadians question, why will the Europeans not
accept our beef?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the European Union
continues to practise fearmongering and the spreading of
misinformation about the quality of Canadian beef in order to go
against the WTO ruling. It has been proven time and time again
to the WTO by the World Health Organization, the European Union's
own veterinarian and health committee, Codex Alimentarius and
Health Canada that Canadian beef is safe.
We want access. If we do not get access, we want compensation.
If we do not get that, we will retaliate.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask the government hon. House leader if he could provide
the House with the batting order so that we will know what
pitchers to put up.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question, which he put in baseball format.
This afternoon we will conclude the debate on report stage of
Bill C-78, the pension legislation. That will result in a number
of votes at 5.30 p.m., or thereabouts.
On Friday we shall consider the report stage and third reading
of Bill C-69, the criminal records legislation, and second
reading of Bill S-23, respecting the Carriage by Air Act.
I understand that there have also been negotiations today
regarding the status of Bill C-64, with respect to travelling
exhibitions, and there might be a disposition to deal with that
bill without debate at third reading tomorrow.
1505
Next week is a constituency week. We will return on May 25,
given that May 24 is a holiday.
The hours that day will be those usually followed on a Monday.
That is to say, the House will meet at 11 a.m. rather than 10
a.m., and the debate will be on third reading of Bill C-78, with
the vote to take place at 6.30 p.m. that day.
On Wednesday, May 26 I hope to call the report stage of Bill
C-67, the foreign bank bill. This will be followed by the report
stage of Bill C-54, respecting electronic commerce, privacy and
other such matters.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend
the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act,
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada
Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and
of Group No. 3.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had the floor.
He has eight minutes remaining for his remarks.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as we were getting close to question period I was
attempting to draw an analogy of this bill to a storefront. On
the storefront it says “Men's clothing”, but there are side
doors and back doors. The main business being done in that
building is bootlegging. We will call this building the
government building.
I want to show the House what has happened. I have received
hundreds of petitions from my constituency concerning the term
marriage and for every one of those petitions I have received
this response from the government: “The term marriage in Canada
is clear in law and is defined as the union of one man and one
woman, to the exclusion of all others”. That is what the
government is saying at the front door. However, the bill we are
discussing will change the meaning of marriage forever and ever.
The government goes on to say: “There is no need to either
enact this definition in legislation or to amend any existing
legislation”.
While the government makes that statement, while it appears to
be maintaining the definition of marriage and while it appears to
be saying that it will preserve it forever and ever, this bill
will clearly destroy the meaning of the term marriage forever and
ever.
This bill will go down as the bill which, when put on the
storefront, says marriage, but through the back doors and the
side doors it is anything but.
There are many questions that have to be answered. When this
bill is proclaimed, think of the hundreds of thousands of people
who will be able to claim spousal benefits from life insurance
policies who are in a relationship which is not based on what we
consider to be a marriage.
The government cannot even ask this question. What about CPP
death benefits? To whom will they go? Anyone will be able to
challenge the current existing laws relating to the Canada
pension plan, and they will.
This is probably the most serious bill that has come before the
House in years.
It is the beginning of the destruction of what we have had in
this country from the beginning of time. This bill will destroy
our heritage. This bill will destroy the terminology of
marriage. Make no mistake about it, this bill will destroy the
very moral fibre of this country. This is not a laughing matter.
The government is going to have to answer to Canada.
Unfortunately, Canadians will not see the ill effects of this
bill for a few years.
1510
What is the government's definition of the relationship of what
we call the new nature? What is the relationship? How does the
government propose to ensure that only those individuals who are
engaged in a relationship of a sexual nature will get the
surviving benefit? The question has been asked, but it has not
been answered. How will the individual prove that the
relationship is indeed a true relationship? Who is going to
prove that? Canadians need to be worried about this. It is not
so much my concern, it is a concern for my grandchildren and for
their children.
We have come through a great era in the building of this
country. Men and women, marriages and families have built this
country. The government has destroyed it through the back door.
On top of that, the government has moved closure on something
that is held high and dear by Canadians. Shame on the
government.
Why are pension benefits extended solely on sexual activities?
No one on the other side will answer the question. Those members
do not care. What the government puts on the front door is not
what is going in the side door and it certainly is not what is
coming out. Shame on the government.
Will we now have sex inspectors to verify activity? Just think
of that. That will take place.
Hundreds of acts will be modified by this bill through the back
door. The government may say that marriage will never be
changed, but this bill will change it. The government knows
that, so it brought in closure.
If a person is currently married but separated and living with
somebody else, who is the survivor? That question has to be
answered before we can proceed with this bill.
I beg the government to pull this bill before tonight. It is
wrong for Canada. It is wrong for the people living in this
century. It will certainly be wrong for Canadians in the future.
This is a terrible piece of legislation. Canadians, I am afraid,
will learn that only too late.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-78. I would like to focus, in
particular, on the issue of the debt and talk about the financial
implications of this bill.
In successive budgets the federal government has balanced the
federal books and has made a commitment to bring down our
national debt.
1515
Bill C-78 represents another stepping stone toward that goal.
Bill C-78 will allow the federal Treasury Board to deal with
existing surplus in the superannuation accounts of the Public
Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation
Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
Funds from these pension plans will be directed at paying down
Canada's $583 billion debt. The pension plan now has a balance
of $119 billion from years of contributions and interest
payments. The federal governments actuaries, however, estimate
that only $94 billion is needed to pay the pension benefits of
all existing and retired public servants.
In the public accounts of 1996-97 the Auditor General of Canada
pointed out that the accounting for employee pensions should be
carefully re-examined and changed. This is exactly what Bill
C-78 addresses.
Canada's current economic success is due to sound economic and
fiscal policies and the hard work and sacrifice of Canadians. In
just four years we have eliminated a budgetary deficit which
stood at $42 billion in 1993-94. In fact our first surplus in 28
years of $3.5 billion was recorded in 1997-98 and went to pay
down the debt.
In the last federal budget the government put forward its debt
repayment plan to address our national debt. The government will
continue to present two year fiscal plans based on prudent
economic planning assumptions. The first fiscal plan will
continue to include a contingency reserve as a buffer against
unexpected financial pressures. The current plan contains a
contingency reserve of $3 billion a year. When the contingency
reserve is not needed, such as last year, it will go directly to
paying down the public debt.
In addition to the federal budgets of the government,
legislation such as Bill C-78 would go to bringing down our
national debt further. I am surprised that the Reform Party does
not support the bill. I would have thought that a party so
ardent about pinching pennies would stand up against the chance
to put a solid concrete contribution of $30 billion toward
reducing our national debt. I would like to know where the
consistency is in terms of its policies on this issue.
There is support for the bill. The Edmonton Journal wrote
the following about Bill C-78:
The Toronto Star wrote:
By claiming the surplus, Ottawa can thus produce a painless $30
billion reduction in its debt. With reduction in the debt, of
course, goes a reduction in interest payments, leaving Ottawa
more money to spend on other things.
The Montreal Gazette stated the federal approach to
dealing with the pension surplus was not only sound fiscal
management but also a perfectly defensible use of the pension
surplus.
Malcolm Hamilton, a pension specialist at William M. Mercer,
said that time was ripe for the government to privatize the
pension fund. With the deficit under control, he said, the
government no longer needed to borrow from the plan. Mr.
Hamilton argued that the government had public opinion on its
side to use the surplus to pay down the debt. Public servants
pay high premiums for their pension, 7.5% of their salaries, but
they also have one of the best pension plans in the country.
Even Mr. Rex Guy, national president of the Federal
Superannuates National Association, stated:
Any surplus must be shared equitably by the employer (the
taxpayers), employees, and pensioners. FSNA believes that
forcing a decision at the Supreme Court level on “ownership” of
the surplus would inevitably lead the discussion away from the
question of fairness and equity. FSNA has consulted independent
professional and legal experts in the pension field and has been
advised that, on the basis of current legal jurisprudence, the
employer can decide how to dispose of the surplus.
Mr. Guy as well as many others have raised concerns to the
effect that Bill C-78 might lead to shortfalls in the pension
plan. There are provisions in the bill to address these
concerns.
Bill C-78 proposals will allow for the establishment of an
appropriate reserve to smooth any adverse effects in future
actuarial assumptions. This is the same amount that is currently
provided under the Income Tax Act for other employers, up to 10%
of the pension liabilities.
Further, the legislation does not require surpluses to be
withdrawn all at once. Rather they can be debited over a period
of up to 15 years.
1520
The federal government has always been committed to the pension
plan. The current superannuation account was established by law
to assure the employees that the government recognized its
obligation to pay their pensions. If any shortfall or deficit
exists between the amounts in the pension account, the government
must make additional contributions to cover that shortfall. It
has done so on many occasions in the past. The government has
always assumed 100% responsibility for any funding deficits, that
is all the risk that arose in the federal public service pension
plan.
On the question of whether the government is setting a dangerous
precedent by taking the surplus and applying it, clearly there
are few plans primarily in the public sector where both surpluses
and deficits are shared by the employer and the employees.
Entitlement to surpluses excluding withdrawals is actually based
on specific provisions in the pension plan text. Again Bill C-78
is adding such a provision to the public sector plan.
Bill C-78 represents the government's commitment to putting our
fiscal books in order while protecting the pension plan. It
represents a strong commitment to taking Canada out of debt. By
passing the bill we can take one more step toward a healthier
fiscally sound future and, as the Toronto Star so rightly
pointed out, reduce our debt and interest payments which in turn
would allow us to focus on other Canadian priorities: health
care funding, more money for children's benefits, for seniors
programs, and for an overall better quality of life for all
Canadians.
We are not taking money away from Canadians. We are actually
judiciously addressing our financial and fiscal responsibilities.
We are making sure that all those involved in the pension plan,
both those who are currently working and those who are retired,
will get every cent. As has been pointed out in the House, the
plan is even being enhanced.
Again I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to consider
this point very carefully when they vote later this evening.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted if you came to visit my
riding. Seeing all the regions and all the regional county
municipalities is something you will never forget.
I am very pleased to speak to the motions in Group No. 3. I
remind the House that time allocation has been brought in with
regard to this most important piece of legislation. This bill
deals with the use of billions of dollars, and yet the federal
government has decided to limit the debate.
It seems rather inappropriate that, while the federal government
has moved time allocation, some members of the government
majority would be using up the time we have left, even though
the government felt it was not necessary to take all the time
needed to analyze this bill. This situation is somewhat ironic,
and I will come back to that at the end of my speech.
However, I think it is important to adopt the two amendments in
the group we are now debating because it would at least improve
the bill somewhat, without necessarily making it acceptable.
There are many other amendments that would be essential, but at
least these would be a significant improvement.
First, Motion No. 16 proposes that the contribution rates be set
out in an act of parliament to ensure that the government cannot
do whatever it wants in the future. When it changes the
contribution rates, it will be required to introduce a bill in
parliament to that effect.
Knowing what the federal government has done with the employment
insurance fund, the rationale behind this amendment is easy to
understand. Year after year, it receives about $19 billion in
premiums and spends between $12 and $13 billion. This means
that, each year, the federal government uses between $5 and $6
billion for purposes other than those provided for in the act,
for example to pay off the debt or to finance other types of
spending.
When people pay their employment insurance premiums, it is very
clear that they want adequate protection. Right now, they have
the worst of both worlds.
They pay too much in premiums and they do not have adequate
protection in case they become unemployed.
We do not want the same situation with regard to pension plans.
The proposed amendment is aimed at making the government
accountable to parliament for any changes it wants to make to
contribution rates.
1525
The other amendment, Motion No. 38, is designed to prevent the
accumulation of very large surpluses so we do not end up in the
kind of situation we are in today. When there is a large surplus
in a pension plan, there are always two options: reducing or
suspending contributions, or improving the plan.
Without this kind of safeguards, the federal government will
have total discretion. It will be able to do whatever it wants
with this money, and contributors will not have the impression
of getting adequate benefits.
Between 1924 and 1998, federal contributions represented only
some 48% of all contributions made over 74 years. People
wanting sufficient control over their money put in 52%, the
lion's share.
The federal government took this money. I think the arguments
made by my colleague on the majority side are inadequate. It
is not because the government has money available and the need
to repay a debt that it is necessarily entitled to take this
money from a fund.
It is taking money from the employment insurance and the pension
funds. The funds were not collected for this purpose.
The government must assume its responsibilities and ensure the
solidity of the employment insurance plan so that it truly meets
the objectives is was designed for. This goes as well for the
pension funds. These are not cash cows. The intent of our
amendment is to correct this situation.
We therefore have two amendments intended to improve the
situation and to try to have sufficient minimum control over the
surpluses. That does not mean that it will become acceptable
form the entire bill. The government opposite was highly
criticized. It manages in a very egotistical and personal
fashion the funds that belong to all those who contribute to them.
It is also in the process of defining the ground rules for the
future and, in this regard, I think it important that the bill
be reviewed, that there be a series of amendments making it more
acceptable and, ultimately, if ever the goal of legitimate use
of contributors' funds is attained, the House could always
debate whether the bill was acceptable or whether more changes
were required.
The government's decision to impose a time limit on debate is
ridiculous. These are decisions involving billions of dollars.
Individual members are being denied an opportunity to speak.
Moreover, majority members, who were told by the government that
there would be time allocation, voted in favour.
This gives them the chance to take up the time of those who
might have suggestions for improving the bill. The Liberal
majority is contradicting itself.
On the one hand, it voted to impose time allocation and, on the
other, it is taking up debate time when it itself felt that the
debate should be wrapped up as quickly as possible.
I think that the government should at least have had the decency
not to have any speakers, given its desire to bring the debate
to a speedy conclusion, and given that opposition members have a
great many points to make.
The government's logic is questionable, particularly as they are
a bit short on arguments. Clearly, this is a decision that was
imposed by cabinet and that is based on the same logic as the EI
decision.
They are trying to tap into as many sources of funds as
possible, in order to amass as much money as possible,
regardless of its source, regardless of the fact that it might
belong to someone else, regardless of the fact that it belongs
to the contributors into the employment insurance fund, the
employers and employees, or, in the case of the public service
pensions, the federal government employees who are seeing
billions of dollars getting away from them and into the hands of
the government, to be used for purposes other than the one for
which they were intended.
1530
This is a rather frustrating debate. It is also one that will
surely lead people to pass judgement on this government. When
they have to assess the government's track record in the next
federal election, they will have to keep in mind that the
government has decided to use the surplus in their pension funds
for purposes other than those for which they contributed.
They will be able to send a message to the government, one that
will be richly deserved.
In the end, it would lead the government to show a greater sense
of responsibility and to make sure that when it must provide
sound management it does so with the money available and by
monitoring spending, not by taking money elsewhere to make up
for ineffective monitoring in its own jurisdictions.
For all these reasons, unless the two amendments in that group
are adopted and substantive changes are made to the bill, the
Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill. We do hope, however,
that the amendments in the group now under consideration will be
approved by the majority. These two amendments would go a long
way to making this bill more acceptable. I am asking the
government majority to adot them.
In conclusion, I would like to get the unanimous consent of the
House to move the following motion:
That all government members, since government has imposed time
allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage, be
prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-78, the public
service pension plan act.
The hon. member for Oak Ridges talked about how the government
had every angle covered when it wrote the bill and how nothing
could ever go wrong. I point to the Canada pension plan and
successive governments saying no problem, don't worry, be happy;
nothing can go wrong with the Canada pension plan. Those were
smooth assurances to soothe the fear of taxpayers, to soothe
fears of actuaries and to convey hope.
Now we see the plan increasing the amount of pension
contributions every year until it is up to almost 10%. That is
hardly the kind of action which engenders a lot of confidence.
The Liberals have proudly characterized themselves as deficit
slayers, but it takes real creativity to call themselves deficit
slayers given the record of the Liberal government. In the
context of this important debate on Bill C-78 it is time to set
the record straight.
During the budget debates and in the many kind words the
Liberals spoke about themselves thereafter, I happened to hear
the Minister of Health on TV saying that two years from now we
would have real money for health care in Canada. I wonder if
anybody thought what two years from now would mean to the Liberal
government. It means, of course, an election. It will need all
kinds of money to put that health budget before Canadians.
We are not complaining about health spending. In fact we have
called for increased spending, but to hold it off for two years
so that it can raid this pension and end up with the money for it
seems to be kind of cynical. If I am rather cynical about it, I
think it is understandable.
1535
Any deficit that the Liberals have eliminated has not been
through genuine cost reduction but through direct tax increases
on the backs of Canadians and the raiding of public funds. First
the Liberals chose the Canada pension plan. It took a number of
years to bring it practically to its knees. Goodness knows
whether the planned increases in premiums will make enough of a
difference.
Employment insurance premiums are held at far too high a level
while people on employment insurance are struggling to make ends
meet. This just does not seem to be the way a government that
cares for its people, as the Liberal government says it does,
does things. Now it is turning to the public service pension
plan.
Despite all of this the debt is still far too high. Taxes are
far too high. In light of this $30 billion take the finance
minister still refuses to give Canadian taxpayers a tax break.
All these raids on the backs of Canadians, combined with high
marginal rates and bracket creep, give us the highest taxes of
any country in the G-7.
What is next? The Liberals have established themselves as the
most creative break and enter artists of our day. This audacious
legislation is a good example. This is a break-in through the
back door by way of legislation rather than through the front
door by way of negotiation.
I want to talk about what the Liberals are proposing to do with
the public service pension plan. In that regard Bill C-78
amounts to nothing more than another creative Liberal tax grab.
They have been slowly liquidating the surplus in the pension plan
over the past few years. That is just one of the ways they have
been able to balance the books. It is not by cutting spending
but by raiding surpluses and taxing Canadians higher and higher
year after year.
Another claim the government makes is that it has been fiscally
prudent, but the truth is that the finance minister is improving
the health of the federal government's finances, among other
things, by dipping into civil service pension piggybanks. Since
1996, I say rather cynically, $10.1 billion has been saved by not
making interest payments on the actuarial surplus. On another
point which has nothing to do with fiscal prudence the civil
service is overlooked in the disposal of excess funds.
These types of actions by the Liberals are not only becoming
more common but are more than ever being seen for what they are:
morally reprehensible behaviour on the part of the Liberal
government. Yet the government attempts to justify its actions
in the name of deficit reduction. The great scandal in this
regard is that it is not at all about deficit fighting, as the
Liberals would have us believe. Rather, it is about their
continuing quest for a stream of taxes on overburdened taxpayers.
Sadly taxpayers are the odd men out in this equation. Taxpayers
own the surpluses in the public service pension plans. Taxpayers
in the past have covered $13 billion worth of shortfalls in the
public service pension plans. Taxpayers will be on the hook for
future deficits. Therefore taxpayers must be protected.
The simple fact is that the surplus in the plan should be left
alone. The Liberals should just take their hands off it. The
government should not be using it for any other purpose than to
ensure the plan remains solvent now and in the future. The
bottom line is that any surplus in a pension plan should not be
available to any employer, government or private. It should
remain in the plan for the benefit of current and future retirees
and act as a cushion against future deficits.
I will turn now to a discussion of some of the amendments
dealing with the issue of conjugal relationships. These
amendments are in response to lower court decisions which see
certain benefits such as pension survivor benefits currently
afforded to married and common law couples being extended to same
sex relationships.
The central issue surrounds the definition of spouse. The
government has rightly affirmed the traditional definitions of
spouse and marriage. It is important that we begin with the
proper definitions. According to the Oxford English
Dictionary, a conjugal relationship is one of marriage or the
relationship between husband and wife and conjugal rights are
those rights, especially in reference to sexual relations,
regarded as exercisable in law by each partner in a marriage.
1540
Spouse and marriage have been given special status in Canadian
law because of their distinctive characteristics and unique
contribution to Canadian society. It is important therefore that
the current definition of spouse be retained and that an
appropriate range of benefits and obligations be afforded the
marital relationship, really the marital home. However the
criteria proposed in Bill C-78 for extended survivor benefits are
unacceptably vague.
The bill defines a survivor as either one who is married to the
contributor or one who can establish that he or she was
cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with the
contributor for at least one year immediately before the death of
the contributor.
Conjugality is one of several criteria which establish that
benefits and obligations for heterosexual conjugal relationships
are among all forms of domestic partnerships unique in their
capacity to procreate children. It is this kind of relationship
that routinely involves the caring for and nurturing of children.
As the House knows there is a cost incurred through child
rearing. Benefits have been extended to the spousal relationship
to enhance the stability of the family relationship, as well to
recognize the long term commitment and interdependence of the
relationship.
Within Bill C-78 is the intent to extend benefits to same sex
couples. When considering benefits for domestic relationships
other than a spousal relationship, is sexual activity an
appropriate criterion on which to extend benefits? What about
other long term relationships of financial or emotional
interdependency which do not involve sexual activity?
The new definition in Bill C-78 could include roommates who are
sexually intimate once in the course of a year long cohabitation,
yet exclude an unmarried adult brother and sister or two adult
sisters who have lived together in a household for many years and
are dependent one on another.
If the federal government plans to extend benefits beyond
spousal or marital relationships to other types of relationships,
it should consider the original rationale for giving the benefit
to determine the basis on which non-spousal relationships should
qualify. Furthermore, broad public debate should take place
first before changes are made in a piecemeal fashion, the way the
Liberals are doing with the bill.
We see again the government blindly going ahead with a policy
that is not only questionable but completely unjustified since no
debate has yet taken place with respect to altering the
definitions of spouse and marriage as they are held within the
law.
Before the government expands or changes the definition of
spouse or marriage there must first be a proper debate in
parliament and among all Canadians on such an important issue. We
know that a strong majority of Canadians uphold and affirm the
traditional definition and concept of marriage. The government's
attempt to define conjugal relationships and explain who
constitutes a survivor is a mess and impossible to determine from
the wording in the bill.
In closing I find it interesting that the Liberals have recently
begun a survey to understand why there is such low morale in the
public service and why in the west people feel alienated from
them. They are schizophrenic. What the Liberals are doing in
the bill is only typical behaviour for them and offers the answer
to their own question. Is it any wonder Canadians are
increasingly skeptical of the government?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker,
errare humanum est, persevere diabolicum, said the Romans. To
err is human, but to persist is diabolical. One could not
describe any better the bill before us.
After appropriating the employment insurance fund surplus, the
government now wants to get its hands on the accumulated surplus
in the public sector pension plans. We have to face the facts.
Relying on his docile majority, the Prime Minister has decided
to grab everything within his reach and put it in his large
pocket, whether it belongs to him or not.
It would not be so bad if this misappropriated money were to be
used for legitimate purposes. But can we say the federal
government's obvious intention to use this money to build a
slush fund for the next election is a legitimate purpose? It
wants to be able to tell people how good and how generous it is
just before they cast their vote.
Of course, the federal government also wants to use this money
to continue to fund its intrusion in provincial jurisdictions.
That is certainly as bold, shameless and cynical as can be.
1545
What scares me about this scheme is that people did nothing else
but shrug in disgust and resignation. All those scandals in
Ottawa have made them numb. They are no longer reacting.
This kind of passivity is dangerous because it encourages the
government to continue with its actions. What is the use of
democracy if the people, theoretically sovereign, give up their
sovereignty, thereby allowing their leaders to act as dictators
with impunity?
Why would we be surprised at this lack of public reaction, when,
higher up, the provincial leaders, except Quebec's, provided a
lamentable example? It is time to recall the history of the
social union.
On February 4, at 24 Sussex Drive, nine premiers, abdicating
their birthright to their area of jurisdiction in exchange for a
dish of budget largesse lentils, agreed to the massive intrusion
by Ottawa in their constitutional jurisdiction.
The most pressing duty of the members of the Bloc Quebecois is
to awaken the indignation of the electorate. Holy indignation,
the salutary ability to react, to rise up, to cry out loud and
long in the media and, if necessary, in the street, our disgust,
our indignation, our satiation at this insulting scorn for the
most elementary government ethics.
When parliamentary democracy is in crisis, elected
representatives have no other choice but to advise their
electors.
But, it is an ill wind that blows no good. By settling deeper
and deeper into ignominy, this government will, I hope at least,
one day soon convince all Quebeckers that, to escape this foul
mudhole that Canadian politics has become under it, sovereignty
is the only way.
I would now like to introduce a motion. I began my speech by
recalling the old proverb that to err is human, to persist in
error is diabolical. My colleagues opposite have twice rejected
a motion asking them to withdraw from this debate, since they
are the ones that imposed closure.
In the hope that, having made a mistake they will not want to
persist in their error diabolically, I request the unanimous
consent of the House for the following motion:
That all government members, since the government has imposed
time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage, be
prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will first make a comment with regard to the second
attempt in essence to muzzle members of parliament simply because
they represent the government side. That kind of thinking is a
little dangerous. The reality is if we were not to speak on this
issue, as has been requested, we would obviously hear one side of
the issue and unfortunately we would hear the side that is not
based on reality.
An hon. member: You haven't been listening.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have been listening.
It is nothing more than fearmongering and trying to get people
upset. I want to give an example.
I received an e-mail from Mr. Greg Jones, a constituent of mine.
Mr. Jones wrote “I am a retired police officer and if passage
of this bill will negatively impact upon my pension plan or
pension plan surplus, do not allow the bill to pass”.
He sent along a copy of an ad that has been placed in one of the
Toronto newspapers by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and a
number of other union organizations. Who knows, there might have
been some financial contribution from some party in this place, I
say to the members of the New Democratic Party.
The ad says “It is about the heist of the hard-earned dollars
set aside by workers for their retirement benefits”.
1550
The government is guaranteeing their retirement benefits in this
plan. The government is putting the pension for the public
service employees into a state where exactly the opposite of what
is being said in the advertisement is the case. The pension plan
is not being threatened in any way whatsoever.
The ad goes on to say that experts—and of course they do not
say who they are; they might be certain opposition critics—warn
that this legislation could set a dangerous precedent and
encourage private employers to do the same thing. What is not
pointed out is that any private sector pension plan must conform
to the rules of the Income Tax Act. One of the rules says that
the surplus buildup can be no greater than 10% and once it
reaches 10% it must be dealt with in some way.
It makes sense to bring what is a very generous and well
earned—I would not take anything away from the public service
employees—pension plan into compliance with the Income Tax Act.
It is a secure pension plan backed by what could obviously be one
of the most secure institutions in our land, the Government of
Canada. It is a very secure bill. In reality it does not conform
to the rules under the Income Tax Act. This bill will allow the
cabinet, the governor in council the flexibility to ensure that
it does conform.
I want to say to Mr. Jones and all the retirees out there, do
not be misled by the rhetoric in this place or by advertisements
that tell a little bit of the story. This is not an attack or a
grab in any way on the security of the pension plan that Mr.
Jones and his other retired colleagues enjoy.
If government members were not allowed to put facts like that on
the table, if we were to acquiesce to the members opposite and
simply sit here and say nothing, then the kind of information
that is being perpetrated in this ad in a close to fraudulent
manner would simply be added to. People would get upset and
rightfully so if they really thought that the government was in
some way attacking their pension plan.
We are dealing with amendments in Group No. 3. The pension plan
is secured and primarily funded by the taxpayer. Yes, the
workers make a contribution, but the vast majority of the
contributions made into this pension plan are made by the
taxpayer, not by the worker. Of course I do not see that in the
ad and I do not hear it in speeches by the opposition members.
The contribution rate to the pension plan is roughly 70:30 with
70% being contributed by the government, which is the taxpayer.
In fact, if we were to extrapolate the existing pension plan over
the next one and a half years, that contribution rate would
change to 80:20 unless we did something about it. Does it seem to
make sense that when an employer is contributing between 70% and
80% of the money that secures the pension plan and the employee
is contributing 20% to 30%, that somehow that equates to an equal
contribution?
That is the argument members of the NDP would put forward, that
this is the money of the workers and somehow it would be
increased wages if it was not put forward in a pension
contribution. They know that is not true. They know that these
contributions were fought and won at the bargaining table. I do
not have a problem with that.
1555
I would say that if we are to allow the curve to continue to
where the employer will be making an even more inordinate
percentage of the contribution toward these plans, then the
taxpayers would have a right to ask us, as a government, why we
are doing that.
We cannot compare this in any way whatsoever to a private sector
pension where the contribution rates are much more likely to be
on a 50:50 basis rather than this large discrepancy. To compare
this and to get people upset in thinking that this is the thin
edge of the wedge and all the private sector companies that
provide pension plans for their workers are going to threaten the
security of the pension plan is fearmongering. It is misleading.
It is putting out information that is not based on fact or
truth. It is a serious bit of unfair propaganda being put before
the retired people.
That is probably one of the most distasteful things about this.
The opposition and some of the unions, the leadership not the
rank and file, are putting out information that is getting people
worried. Those people are relying on their pensions. Maybe they
are a little bit worried about their economic situation. They
have had to go through an enormous change. They are no longer
earning a full salary and are now living on a pension. It is a
time of life when they should be able to feel some comfort in my
view. They should not feel that they are under siege.
For individuals here or in the labour movement to get people
upset in some attempt to mobilize what we would fondly refer to
as grey power is a misuse of the political process. It is an
unfair tactic that they are using in getting these folks upset.
My point is it is vitally important that members on this side
speak. I have no problem and would never suggest that members
opposite should not partake in the democratic process in this
place. When there is a bill or a resolution on the floor,
whether or not there is time allocation, we all have a
responsibility. I represent retired federal workers. I have a
responsibility to tell them how I see this bill, to tell them why
I support this bill, and not to simply sit here and allow those
folks to mislead.
One of the amendments by the hon. member for St. Albert deals
with the issue of requiring contribution rates to be in an act of
parliament. This is a move that the opposition, primarily the
Reform Party, is attempting to bring in to this place so that
every bit of regulation, every bit of dotting the i's and
crossing the t's, must be a full-fledged debate in
parliament.
We all know that the process calls for the big picture. The
legislation is to be debated, passed and enacted by parliament
and the regulations are to be handled by the staff of the
Government of Canada. We know that and we it is appropriate. To
do it the way the hon. member is suggesting would create a
gridlock. It would make it impossible to make the changes that
we think are vital to secure the future of the pension plan for
all public sector employees.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the member
we just heard from if a member of the ruling Liberal Party, and I
emphasize the word ruling. It underlines how out of touch these
people are. Here is a dispute and their solution is, “Oh, that
is easy. We will solve it. We will just take it all”. That is
so one-sided, so lopsided.
With respect to the motions brought by our Bloc colleagues
saying that those who stood up and voted to limit debate should
forgo their right to debate, make a lot of sense. The Liberals
use their majority to limit debate and then they use up the time
for those of us who want to talk about these things and try to
represent some common sense and fairness here.
I attribute that desire to all members on this side, the united
alternative on this side. We are the alternative to that
arrogant controlling government that says “Unless we control it
and do it our way, it cannot possibly be right”. That is a
terrible false assumption. It cannot be true.
1600
I want to talk a bit about the amendments which are proposed in
this group because they have to do with the actuarial evaluation.
What the Liberal government is missing entirely is the unfairness
of what it is doing. The Liberals get up, they crow and puff up
their chests like colourful peacocks trying to attract mates and
they say that they just cannot do anything wrong, that they are
guaranteeing these pensions so the people have no complaint. That
may be true. However, they fail to recognize what a surplus
means. It means that the amount of money paid in over the last
10, 15, 20, 40 or however many years since a person has been an
employee was too high. Moneys are put in by the employer, which
is the taxpayer, and the employee, the person in the plan. In
other words, they have taken more money from them than they
should have to sustain the plan. That is totally obvious. If it
were not the case, there would not be a surplus. To whom does
that money belong?
We have all of these different questions being asked. Some say
20%, some say 30%. I suppose what we should do is think about
things like the MP pension plan to which the taxpayer contributes
about 80%. The employees are the members of parliament and the
senators. When given the opportunity in the last parliament, all
but one Reformer opted out of the plan because we said that it
was just not right. This bill also addresses the plan for
members of parliament.
I do not have the numbers at my fingertips and I suppose that I
should if I am going to talk about this. However, if we look at
all of the money in this so-called fund, my conjecture is that
the MP pension plan has already taken the total sum down.
Ordinary civil servants and other members of the so-called
ordinary working class have paid in more than they should have to
compensate for the members of parliament who are in this plan. I
am not sure that it is all in the same fund and whether it is
accounted for that way, so I need to be a little careful, but
certainly in terms of the taxpayers' interests in the matter that
would be the case.
We have a situation where we need to answer, before we get into
any of this, a fundamental question. Who should pay for the
livelihood of a person who has gone into retirement? That is the
fundamental question which has never been answered.
Over the years we have had different plans. I remember when I
was a little itty-bitty kid. That was a long time ago. Members
will not believe it but I turned 60 this week, so when I say
“when I was a little itty-bitty kid”, it was a long time ago.
I remember my grandfather skimping and saving to put money into a
retirement fund. He said: “Mom and I will not always have the
ability to work and earn money, so we had better put some away so
we can look after ourselves”.
It is ironic that when he finally did retire the Liberal
government at the time brought in a pension plan which had some
rules. It turned out that my grandfather was ineligible because
he had made the mistake of not spending his own money. He had
saved too much. As a result, he was not eligible for the
supplemental benefits the government was offering. His looking
after himself turned out to be a disadvantage. He would have
been better off to have spent more money on his family, on
himself and his wife.
That was a case where a person put money away. Many Canadians
have a mixture. Probably all of us in this place have RRSPs, in
addition to a pension plan in which we participate. I am one of
those who at this stage has only an RRSP, but I do anticipate
getting a small pension from the place where I worked when I
finally retire. I am not getting that pension now, even though I
would be eligible for it, but sometime in the future when my job
here is done, 20 or 30 years from now, I expect to get some money
from that. It represents money that I put in, but also money
that my employer put in. I hope that money will be there,
according to the contract.
1605
The Liberals regularly say that the people who are in the plan
will get their money. That is not the question. Of course they
will get their money, but the Liberals like to talk about it
because it totally deflects from the question of the surplus.
The surplus exists because the people have paid too much.
I gave a speech a long time ago on a bill that came from the
Senate which had to do with winding down pension plans and
dealing with surpluses in pension plans in the private sector.
It was a bill in which even our Minister of Finance had a
fiduciary interest. Indirectly he has divested himself of these
interests, temporarily, while he is a cabinet minister. I
believe he must have done that. However, in the end that
legislation will affect him because the shares in the company
continue to grow and there was a surplus of over $110 million in
the pension fund of his own company.
We were forced in this place to pass legislation that affected
him, which said that an agreement would have to be reached
between the two parties that paid into the fund, the employer and
the employees. Quite clearly that is not bad legislation because
if the employer said it wanted 100% of it the employees and the
retirees would not agree and it would not happen. The employer
would not get 100%. If the employees said that they wanted 100%,
the employer would say no and there would be no agreement.
Clearly they would move to the middle. We, on the assumption
that they would reach a deal somewhere around 50:50, said that
the Minister of Finance had the potential of gaining $50 million
from that legislation. We raised a little stink about it. We
said that the Minister of Finance should not have sponsored the
legislation in the House since he could potentially benefit from
it.
That is no different from the issue we have here. We are
talking about pension money that is set aside to pay the pensions
of civil servants, people in the armed forces and the RCMP. I
will accept from government members that people will get the
pension they are anticipating because it is a defined benefit.
Sure, they will get it, but what about the fact that both the
taxpayers, the government as the employer, and the employees have
paid too much into it and we have this $30 billion?
I outright reject the government's move to say that is all
right, it will just take all of it. All of the money does not
belong to it. It is not all taxpayer money. I concede that some
of it is. The proportion has to be worked out. That can be done
by actuaries very accurately.
Why do we not do that? Why do we not tell these people that we
will give them back funds, either through enhanced benefits,
reduced premiums or contributions? We will compensate
contributors by the amount they have overpaid, and the part the
taxpayers have given up. Sure, take that back and apply it to
something that the taxpayers will benefit from. Let us be fair.
That is what is missing.
Of course the government has invoked time allocation because, as
any bank robber would say, “I ain't going to stick around until
I get caught”.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, before
going into Bill C-78, I would like to say that I have a great
deal of difficulty understanding the behaviour of my colleagues
across the way who, just hours ago, proposed a time allocation
motion, a highly undemocratic gesture, moreover. That revolts
me, to start with.
It revolts me also to see that these people are capable of
finding positive aspects to the dirty deal they are now handing
to government pensioners.
This government deliberately attacked the unemployed a few years
ago.
It misappropriated the funds in the employment insurance fund,
the surplus that had come from the unemployed and from
employers, with not one cent coming from the federal government.
Using all kinds of tactics, however, the Minister of Finance
managed to get his hands on $25 billion.
1610
This Minister of Finance is so money-mad that he has now found a
new source of supply. This time he is going after his own
employees, those who helped keep the government running
properly, those who have helped ensure the country's security—I
refer to the RCMP—and those who made a contribution within the
Canadian forces.
These three pension funds total $30 billion, which the
government wants to get its hands on, possibly for the purpose
of again giving Liberal ministers a chance to create programs
that will offer an opportunity for flag-waving and will, more
importantly, stir up trouble with the provinces. That is their
specialty.
They are very honest.
In fact, they said very clearly in the September 1997 throne
speech that they were increasingly aware of the fact that they
needed money. Why? The Liberal ministers are certainly
concocting other programs to show how good this government is
and how sensitive it is to the current disaster, with the
unemployed, young people without work and people who do not have
access to adequate health care services because of the cuts in
funding.
With the $30 billion, the federal Liberals are preparing, for
September or October, another marketing blitz and propaganda
campaign to demonstrate how good a government they are, but once
again, opposition members, particularly members of the Bloc
Quebecois, are being vigilant. We know what they are up to.
More and more, the government is shirking its responsibilities.
Not too long ago, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency was
established, and it will allow the Minister of National Revenue
to shirk his responsibilities. Questions will be asked of the
minister responsible for this agency in the House, and I already
know what the answer will be “I will investigate. I will ask the
agency. I cannot interfere, because it is an independent
agency”.
This is false. It is not an independent agency.The people who
were chosen, as all those who will be appointed to the new
public sector pension investment board, are good Liberals. I
will give some very important criteria that will be used by the
Liberal government to create what we call a possibly objective
board of directors.
First criterion: they will check to see if these people are
Liberal members with a paid up membership. Second criterion:
they will check to see if they are good friends of the Prime
Minister. Third criterion: they will look at their financial
contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada. And, above all,
they will check to see if these people are prepared to commit,
unconditionally, to follow the Prime Minister's orders.
I am convinced that these are the four criteria that the
government will use to appoint the board of directors of the new
public sector pension investment board.
When we ask questions to the ministers opposite about this
investment board if, unfortunately, it is established, they will
hide behind the fact that it is an independent body. But this
board will not be independent.
1615
Now, all agencies are controlled by the Privy Council. This is
where the real power lies. It is not in this House. The power is
with the Privy Council, with the Prime Minister of Canada, the
special advisers, the Minister of Finance and the President of
the Treasury Board. These people do all sorts of things, at the
expense of the poor in society.
I find it totally unacceptable to go after one's own employees,
to hit people who have been working hard for 20 or 30 years.
Today, the government will reward these people by taking
unilateral action, by taking $30 billion directly from them.
The government is trying to tell us that this is an honest
proposal.
I have a lot of trouble with this word. Yesterday I looked in
the Larousse dictionary for synonyms that come close to what we
cannot say, but I was not successful. It is a bit like a
swindle. With this bill, the government is trying to show that
it is being good to its employees. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
I would like to go back to the very democratic incident of this
morning. This bill affects many people, some of them retired.
We have many comments to make, but this government has become an
expert at imposing time allocation. When we want to speak the
truth, we are gagged and forced to speed up the process. Why?
Because the government is going to need money again in the fall
because there is no longer a surplus in the EI fund.
It has cleaned out the fund, and new money will be needed, this
time for other partisan programs and propaganda.
I have travelled extensively, and I have seen the image that
Canada projects, particularly at agricultural shows. All the
countries focused on their products. Canada's image in Paris
especially was something else. There were so many Canadian
flags that it was hard to see the products. All the other
countries knew that what matters is the products and the market.
When Canada takes part in an event, the dominant image is maple
leaves. The names of vendor companies or organizations appear
on the leaves.
One of the visitors asked me “Is this the Canadian pavilion?”
I said no, it is just exhibitors who happen to be together inside
the Canadian pavilion.
Members can imagine the kind of image we are projecting on the
international level. We are moving towards globalization and we
should be promoting our products and all the provinces, and what
do we see, when we get out of Ottawa? The maple leaf propaganda
of the Liberals.
At the beginning of my remarks, I expressed some reservations
about the actions of my friends opposite. To conclude, I would
like to ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That all government members, since the government has imposed
time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage,
be prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
1620
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 16. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No.
16 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to
Motions Nos. 39 and 47.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 38. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The deferred vote will also apply to motions Nos. 46 and 54.
[English]
We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 4.
The mover for Motion No. 33 is not present. I will hold that
one in case the mover should happen to arrive before I finish
putting the question on the other three.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 95, be amended by deleting lines 20 to
44 on page 75 and lines 1 to 18 on page 76.
The Deputy Speaker: Again the mover for Motion No. 35 is
not here.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 96, be amended by replacing lines 30
to 47 on page 79 and lines 1 to 28 on page 81 with the following:
“44.4 If, following the laying before Parliament of an
actuarial valuation report pursuant to section 45 that relates to
the state of the Public Service Pension Fund there is, in the
Minister's opinion, a surplus in that Fund, the Minister shall
use the surplus to improve the benefits of the pensioners who are
members of the plan or their survivors.”
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if you could seek unanimous consent to have those motions
that have been placed by the member for St. Albert in my name.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
hon. member for Elk Island move the motions standing in the name
of the hon. member for St. Albert?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
1625
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 81 the
following new clause:
“96.1 Despite any other provision in this Act, subsection
9(9) and section 16 of the Pension Benefits Standards
Regulations, 1985 shall, with such modifications as the
circumstances require, apply to a surplus in respect of a pension
plan to which Act applies that is identified following the laying
before Parliament of an actuarial validation report pursuant to
section 45.”
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 151, be amended by deleting lines 31
to 48 on page 129 and lines 1 to 27 on page 130.
That Bill C-78, in Clause 152, be amended by replacing lines 16
to 45 on page 134 and lines 1 to 11 on page 136 with the
following:
“55.4 If, following the laying before Parliament of an
actuarial valuation report pursuant to section 45 that relates to
the state of the Public Service Pension Fund there is, in the
Minister's opinion, a surplus in that Fund, the Minister shall
use the surplus to improve the benefits of the pensioners who are
members of the plan or their survivors.”
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 136
the following new clause:
“152.1 Despite any other provision in this Act, subsection
9(9) and section 16 of the Pension Benefits Standards
Regulations, 1985 shall, with such modification as the
circumstance require, apply to a surplus in respect of a pension
plan to which Act applies that is identified following the laying
before Parliament of an actuarial validation report pursuant to
section 56.”
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-78, in Clause 198, be amended by deleting lines 39
to 46 on page 180 and lines 1 to 38 on page 181.
That Bill C-78, in Clause 199, be amended by replacing lines 18
to 46 on page 185 and lines 1 to 17 on page 187 with the
following:
“29.4 If, following the laying before Parliament of an
actuarial valuation report pursuant to section 45 that relates to
the state of the Public Service Pension Fund there is, in the
Minister's opinion, a surplus in that Fund, the Minister shall
use the surplus to improve the benefits of the pensioners who are
members of the plan or their survivors.”
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe there has now been some consultation and
I would again ask for unanimous
consent that the motions moved in the name of the member for St.
Albert be put in my name.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that we
proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: We will finish this motion first.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-78 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 187
the following new clause:
“199.1 Despite any other provision in this Act, subsection
9(9) and section 16 of the Pension Benefits Standards
Regulations, 1985 shall, with such modification as the
circumstance require, apply to a surplus in respect of a pension
plan to which Act applies that is identified following the laying
before Parliament of an actuarial validation report pursuant to
section 30.”
1630
Mr. Ken Epp (for Mr. John Williams) moved:
The Deputy Speaker: That completes the list of motions in
Group No. 4.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
may need correction, but I have checked in today's order paper
and there were several motions put by the member for St. Albert
that you did not refer to, namely motions—
The Deputy Speaker: I can clear this up very quickly.
All of the motions were identical to motions standing in the name
of the hon. member for Saint-Jean. Every one of the motions in
Group No. 4 has been put in one name or another. Where they were
identical to the motions put by the member for Saint-Jean, they
were put in his name.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, we are nearing
the end of a process which, in my mind, has lost some of its
credibility and undermined democracy. I wanted once again to
start by making this point.
The government has used closure 53 times since in this
parliament, since 1997. Often, opposition members have little
say either here in the House of Commons or in standing
committees. As I said before, it is always the tyranny of the
majority.
We are getting rather fed up with all this and the other
opposition parties are starting to grumble.
Basically, I think there are two types of members of parliament.
There are those, like the Liberal members, who do exactly what
their House leader tells them to do. When he says “We will now
muzzle them”, they all agree, one after the other.
What is most shocking is that government members will often let
opposition members talk until they drop. They let them go on and
on and they do not take part in the debate in order to speed
things up. But what do they do when there is time allocation?
They put their names down to take part in the debate, in order
to limit as much as possible the time opposition members have at
their disposal.
Time allocation is questionable from a democratic point of view,
and doubly so, because we are being gagged, not only here in the
House, but also in committee.
Moreover, the government's attitude is utterly arrogant. This
morning, when he introduced the time allocation motion, the
government House leader laughed and smiled as if to say “We are
going to shut their mouths once and for all and we will do it
with great pleasure”. I find that attitude highly despicable.
But let me come back to the bill at hand. I read recently in the
papers that the government is about to form an ad hoc committee,
probably made up of psychologists, to look into why public
service employees are unenthusiastic and uncompetitive.
The government noticed that there was dissatisfaction among its
employees and it wants to know why.
It is a bit absurd that the government would ask itself why its
employees are so unfavourably disposed towards their employer
and so demoralized. Let us take a look at the special laws
passed recently, including the bludgeon law that forced
employees back to work. At two o'clock in the morning, the
President of the Treasury Board rose in this House to solemnly
announce that an agreement in principle had been reached.
I was a trade unionist for 20 years and I consider that the
President of the Treasury Board managed to add insult to injury.
1635
He tells us at 2 o'clock in the morning that an agreement in
principle has been reached. Usually, the agreement in principle
is signed and the government says “Now that the agreement in
principle has been signed, we will wait for the results of the
general assemblies and we will sign once it is deemed
acceptable”.
That is not what the government did. Not only did it force
workers back to work, but it ignored the agreement in principle
as if it did not exist. Even though there was an agreement in
principle, it decided to impose back to work legislation.
It is not surprising that there has been a slight decrease in
the competitiveness of public servants, nor is it surprising
that there is much recrimination and complaining within the
federal public service.
I will now talk about another issue that I mentioned in my
previous speeches, namely the management of public finances by
this government. The last Star Wars movie having just been
released, I would say the Minister of Finance is the Darth Vader
of the House of Commons.
He hides behind a black costume and sends his troops to the
front. When the time comes to make employment insurance cuts, he
tells one of his valiant lieutenants to go to the front on his
behalf and take money from the employment insurance fund, which
generates between $5 and $6 billion a year.
The fund had accumulated $20 billion to $25 billion. He tells
his lieutenant to go and take it, and hand it over to the
government, to settle the debt and the deficit.
These are really unethical tactics, ones that must be denounced.
Darth Vader then orders the President of Treasury Board, when
pay equity comes up, when the time comes to pay women in the
public service properly, not to do anything, to wait for the
Bell Canada decision, and all kinds of decisions. They all came
out in favour of the women, yet the President of Treasury Board
continues to leave the matter unresolved. There are $2 billion
to $5 billion that should be doing to women in the public
service.
I would remind him, women public servants are also voters.
They are the constituents in Saint-Jean, in Jonquière, everywhere
in Quebec. They are the voters in Louis-Hébert, Manicouagan,
Argenteuil—Papineau, Matapédia—Matane. They are in every riding.
These are not people who are earning a fortune. They earn about
$30,000 a year. This is not a lot of money, so members can
imagine what another $2,000 or $3,000 a year would mean to these
women. They will simply put more of it into the regional
economy.
These are the people who keep the regional economy running. The
federal government will get some of the money back in income and
other taxes.
The government is doing this deliberately. It says “See what
good administrators we are.
Look at our public management, here is our report card”. Darth
Vader says “I put Canada back on the road to economic
prosperity, I resolved the deficit and I am paying off the
debt”.
Who resolved the deficit? Women did. So did the people in the
public service who invested their money in order to have a
reasonable pension plan for their retirement years. Now they
are being told “There is a surplus of $30 million, we are going
to take it”.
But they do not answer the question. Suppose they take it and
things do not work out, then what? The contributions of these
people will be increased or the plans' payments will be limited.
There are basic problems. When I hear the House's Darth Vader,
speaking through his lieutenants, say “We have put Canada back
on the road to economic prosperity”, I find it scandalous.
What sort of image will we send to private sector employers if
parliament sets the bad example of taking money from the pension
funds?
We have used all the terms, because some we cannot use, the
unparliamentary ones. Up to now we have talked of rip-off,
abduction, control and raiding. We have used all the
parliamentary terms, but it comes back to the word we have in
our head but cannot say if we are to use parliamentary language.
So, the example has already been given. I recall the matter of
concern to me, the case of the former employees of the Singer
company.
1640
A few years ago, yours truly asked several questions on behalf
of these workers. The government was the trustee and allowed the
company to take money from the employees' pension fund, with the
result that these people are receiving a monthly pension ranging
from $20 to $50. They could have had much bigger pensions if the
government had been the watchdog that it said it would be.
When we asked these questions, the human resources development
ministers—three of them provided replies over the years—would
always say “No, we have nothing to do with this.
We did nothing wrong”.
What was on the mind of this government, of these directors and
of Darth Vader? They all thought “Some day, we will get our
hands on that surplus”. They could see the surplus in the
employees' fund, but they did not want to set an example and say
“Sorry. We acknowledge our responsibility”.
Today, we can understand why Singer workers were the first
victims, but I think there will be others, considering the
terrible example the government is giving to the private sector.
We proposed amendments, but I am sure government members will
never support them. Yes they listen to their parliamentary
leader when the time comes to gag the opposition. They follow
their orders. They will probably defeat everyone's amendments
and stick to their arrogant behaviour.
The Bloc Quebecois and, I believe, most opposition parties, will
vote against this bill because it is too despicable.
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, National Defence.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
speak for just a few minutes to the amendments that I have now
moved. I thank the House for that indulgence.
I would urge all members to vote in favour of these amendments
because they fix the problem that the government is creating with
this legislation. The government is trying to get its big clammy
meat hooks on money which does not belong to it. It is wrong for
it to do that.
As I have said, there are several solutions to this. One of
them is to just leave the money where it is. It assures the
taxpayers. It protects the taxpayers against future losses as
the demographics change, and they most likely will. It puts a
bit of a security blanket on the fund. The motions put forward
by the Reform Party will do just that. They will protect both
the people who are the employees and the taxpayers via the
government.
I urge all members to support the motions put forward in the
name of the Reform Party and in my name because this is what will
be accomplished.
I think it is very important for us not to support, as the
government is doing, going ahead with the bill unamended and just
ramming it through. It is just wrong. It is not the way to treat
the employees of the government, the servants of the people. It
is just unconscionable.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many
of the motions that have been put forward in my name deal with
trying to take out of the bill the language that would enable
government to seize the $30 billion pension plan. That of course
is the whole goal of the bill.
If we look back at how this whole debate got started, we will
see that it was framed around one simple statement made by Alain
Jolicoeur, the chief negotiator for HRDC in these matters. About
18 months ago he said that employees and pensioners had no
priorietary interest in any surplus in the pension plan.
This statement was further compounded when the President of the
Treasury Board said, “The employees and the unions don't stand
a chance in hell of getting their hands on the pension plan”.
That is a quote, Mr. Speaker. I am not trying to use language
that is not correct. This is where we started from.
1645
Obviously it is a basic tenet of the trade union movement and
anybody involved with employee benefit plans that all pension
surpluses are the exclusive property of the employees who paid
into the plan because it is wages. It is part of the pay package
and wage package.
As we look at this, it makes one wonder, if the President of the
Treasury Board really believed that the employees have no right
to claim that money, why then is he changing the legislation? Why
then is he going to all this trouble of drafting 200 pages of
legislation to get the enabling language to now say that the
government can take the money out of the pension plan?
In the changes we have put forward, we are trying to challenge
the myth being perpetrated that the employees do not have any
right to any part of any surplus. That is certainly what we are
being told by the minister's actions.
If one needs further evidence of the fact that the money is the
employees' money, it is used that way at the bargaining table.
Whenever the bargaining agents for the various public sector
employees are at the table with the government, the government
uses the whole pension package as part of the wage issue. It
says “Well, we can't give you much of a raise this year, but
don't forget that you have always got that lovely pension”.
When it is to its advantage, the government uses the pension as
part of the wage package. Now we are being told it is something
completely separate.
As I pointed out earlier, there was a handshake deal if you
will, a longstanding recognition of an issue when back in the
1960s the government wanted pensions off the bargaining table. It
did not want to negotiate pensions at the same time it was
negotiating wages because it was far too complex. The deal was
that if the pension issue was taken off the bargaining table, the
government would never unilaterally alter the terms and
conditions of the pension plan while this deal held, while this
pact or accord was in place.
That has been violated. It has been shattered. It has been
broken. Exactly what this bill does is it alters the terms and
conditions of the pension plan without going to the other party
and without negotiations.
There is further language in here that gives the President of
the Treasury Board the right to further alter the contributions
any time he sees fit. Any time an actuary says it had better
crank up the contributions from the employees' side, that can be
done without coming back to the advisory board or the House of
Commons, which is where it should come back to because the terms
are being changed unilaterally. It gives unprecedented powers to
the minister that way.
Many of the amendments put forward by the Reform Party and by
our party deal with this issue. They try to take that language
out of the bill that enables the government to seize not only the
current pension but all future pension surpluses generated by the
new public sector pension investment board.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today because I wish to speak to Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend
the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, and other related acts.
We are opposed to the bill now being debated for several
reasons. First, because it is another indication of how this
government manages the public purse, under the Minister of
Finance, by helping itself here and there to any surplus, however
small, and using the money to fund all sorts of projects, often
in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
We are opposed to this way of doing things. We saw what
happened with the surplus in the EI fund. The government helped
itself to it. Insurance means just that. There must always be
money left in the fund for hard times.
The Employment Insurance Act was amended so heavily that it
became extremely difficult for people to qualify for benefits.
They are subject to all sorts of investigations, which are fine
in the normal course of things, but which often deprive those
looking for work of the system they used to be able to rely on.
The amendments to the Employment Insurance Act have gone too
far. Surpluses were used to pay down the deficit and to fund
other programs as quickly as possible with no regard for the
foundation of the EI fund system.
1650
With what happened not too long ago, one has every right to be
concerned and to say “It is no better to keep taking money from
the surpluses in other funds”.
The surplus in the public service plan is about $15 billion. It
is $2.4 billion in the RCMP plan, and $13 billion in the
Canadian forces' plan. This adds up to $30 billion, which are
going to be used to pay for programs or reduce deficits here and
there. The thousands—I repeat thousands—of workers who paid into
the plan are getting shafted.
Currently there are around 275,000 Canadians and Quebeckers who
have been contributing to the plan. There are 160,000 retirees
and 52,000 surviving spouses.
Instead of helping workers, using the interests generated by
these surpluses to improve their working conditions and their
wages, the government decided to do something else, saying “From
now on these surpluses will be part of a fund managed by the
government. The government can dip into it as it sees fit,
without any regard for the very reason the pension funds were
established in the first place”.
When we speak about public service employees, we speak mostly
about women since they are the majority in the public sector.
We are talking about employees who earn about $30,000 a year and
get an average pension of $9,000 a year. These are not people
earning above the average, far from it. They are people who
might be in need of that $30 billion in the surplus to improve
their living conditions, instead of seeing the money taken away
from them.
In recent years these same employees have had all sorts of
things done to them. They may seem to be a pretty tough lot,
but beware. The women public servants may be patient for a
time, but when that patience runs out, watch out, for they have
had enough of being snubbed, after all the pay equity business.
There are people in my riding who have been waiting for years to
see this problematic issue of pay equity solved. When there has
been no solution to a problem for more than 10 years, this
suggest the problem lies with the ones who are supposed to be
finding the solution.
They were told that there were court decisions pending and we
would have to wait and see what the outcome would be. There was
even a decision pending in the private sector. So the public
sector could not make a move because that could have a major
impact on the private sector. All of these judgements have been
brought down now, and the issue could have been solved.
It is true that several billion dollars are at stake, but that
is because nothing has moved for years. Had the problem been
settled at the right time, one year at a time, the figures would
be far less and people would not be left with the same
impression. There would not be these huge sums to be given back
to public servants, because they would have been treated
properly all along.
The matter is not yet settled. People are still waiting. I do
not know if they are Waiting for Godot, like in the play, but
they are definitely still waiting, and the money keeps piling
up. The workers are getting older, some are already retired.
Imagine what a few thousand dollars would mean to these people
who have been waiting 14 years to get it and who are receiving
$9,000 a year in pension benefits. These people have never
earned enough money to brag and say “We are on top of it”.
These people have been and are still being treated unfairly,
because they are still waiting for a solution. Now the
government is picking on these same people, by taking the
surplus in their pension funds and in some way jeopardizing
their secure old age and the future of their pension plan.
1655
My hon. colleagues have talked about the government using and
abusing closure. Of course, we live in a democracy, and our role
in this place is to represent our constituents and defend their
interests by opposing bills that could hurt them.
A lot of my constituents work for the government. Even if that
were not the case, it would still make sense to me to defend the
constituents of my colleagues and even those of the government
members.
When we want to address numerous amendments in relation to a
bill, closure is brought.
This cynical government rises and says “The debate is over”.
This is what gagging the opposition is all about.
In this parliament, the government has resorted to closure more
than 50 times. It might as well tell us right from the beginning
if it does not want us to talk. We have something to say on each
of these amendments.
There are things that are disturbing and one of them is how
little the government cares about its employees. I am thinking
in particular about public servants, because they form the
largest group. We can identify with them more, since we have
worked a lot with them on recent bills, and particularly on the
pay equity issue. Still, this does not keep us from also caring
about Canadian forces and RCMP personnel.
It is somewhat alarming to see that ordinary citizens count for
so little.
By citizens I also mean women, many of whom work with great
dedication in the public service, that is for the government.
They are watching us today and wondering how far this will go.
The government helped itself to the surplus in the employment
insurance fund—public services also pay employment insurance.
Now, it is helping itself to the surplus in their pension funds.
There is no end to this. And, as I said, but I can never say it
often enough, the government has not even settled the very
sensitive issue of pay equity.
I will conclude by asking for the unanimous consent of the House
to move the following motion:
That all government members, since the government has imposed
time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage,
be prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move his motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great sadness that I rise to speak today. This sadness
hangs over the opposition members.
This government's management style is unacceptable. Since my
election in 1997, the Bloc Quebecois and all the opposition
parties have faced closure on many occasions.
What is closure? This government uses it to muzzle the
opposition. Why muzzle the opposition? Because the government
is not capable of legislating in a way consistent with the
reality of Quebeckers and Canadians.
I come from an extremely proud and a highly industrialized
community. There are also many many public service employees in
the riding of Jonquière.
1700
There is a tax data centre there. What did they do recently to
the Department of National Revenue? They set up another agency.
I think they are trying to see how many agencies they can set
up. Why is this government doing that? Because they have a
whole lot of friends to thank.
I have always been in active politics. Elected the member for
Jonquière, I was not expecting to be part of a circus here in
the House. What is this government doing? Taking care of all
its friends. Why must these people be compensated? Because the
government has nothing to give the people. It has to look after
its friends first of all.
What is going on right now with Bill C-78 is unacceptable. The
government is doing the same thing it did with the EI fund. Too
much is not enough, as they say, and so is too little. This
government has no common sense.
On weekends I visit my riding. People say to me: “Jocelyne,
are you going to tell the government that there is such a thing
as common sense? If they do not know what it is, then they
should pay us a visit, talk to people in factories. We will
show them a thing or two”.
They did not go to the same school as we did. They went to
schools that taught them to reward their cronies, their friends.
What is going on is not fair to women, as my colleague, the
member for Louis-Hébert, pointed out.
Three quarters of the employees at the taxation data centre in
my riding are women. They are constantly coming to see me to
complain about how the President of the Treasury Board has
insulted them yet again. They are insulted by his unwillingness
to recognized pay equity.
Not only does the government not recognize pay equity, but it is
dipping into the pension fund. In most cases, these women have
sacrificed their health.
For many years now, the government has resorted to cutbacks in
the public service in order to reduce the deficit. Where there
used to be three or four women doing a job in the taxation
centre, now there is only one. The workload has increased. Now
the government is actually going to dip into their pension fund,
when it is known that most of these women are single parents.
They have children under their care. When they retire, they will
get a meagre $9,000 pension. It is a joke at their expense.
I do not think there are a lot of government members who know
how it is in real life, how much it costs to buy a pound of
butter or to buy clothes for children. I will gladly take them
shopping to show them the day to day reality of ordinary people.
It is high time workers put the government in its place. They
are sick and tired of paying when the government does anything
it wants with their money. On top of that, it likes to reward
its friends.
I am not proud today. It is May 13. Usually, 13 is my lucky
number. Today is not a lucky day for Quebeckers and Canadians,
for those people who gave their all to do their job well.
They gave their all hoping to have a decent income when they
retire.
The government has other ideas. Instead of increasing this
decent income, it takes money from these people. Then it says
that it is for their own good. Oh, sure.
My parents taught me that a person who takes something from
another person must be judged. One of these days, the Liberals
will be judged.
We will be able to say that we told them not to do that. They
will be condemned, and I will be there to applaud.
1705
In closing, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to
move the following motion:
That all government members, since the government has imposed
time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage,
be prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to introduce this motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges
advised me in writing that he would be unable to introduce his
motion during Private Members' Business on Friday, May 14, 1999.
[English]
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table
officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order
of precedence.
Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will
continue with the business before it prior to private members'
hour.
* * *
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend
the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act,
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada
Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and
of Group No. 4.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue before us concerns the federal employees'
pension plan. It is estimated that there is a surplus of about
$30 billion.
From time to time we should draw wisdom from the media. I have
in my hand an editorial from the Toronto Star dated April
26, 1999. I could not do better than to quote profusely from
this editorial.
What, for example, is the nature of the federal employees' plan?
What is the amount they contribute from their earnings? They
contribute a maximum of 7.5% of their earnings to this plan.
Apparently it is a plan that is acceptable to them and it is
indeed a very good plan.
What is the duty of the federal government to this plan?
An hon. member: How can you stand there?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: I can stand here because this is a
House of democracy. If the member of the Reform Party respects
democracy, then he will respect freedom of speech.
An hon. member: You do not believe in democracy or you
would not have shut down debate.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: This is an example of a member of
the Reform Party trying to make a travesty of democracy in
Canada. I am not angered, I am saddened that it would be evinced
by the member opposite.
The duty of government to this pension plan is not only that the
federal government will match the contribution of federal
employees, but as well it must be noted very clearly that the
government will assume all the risk.
There are two points. The government matches the contribution
of the employees and at the same time it makes up for any short
fall.
What is the issue before us? I will read from the editorial
which I mentioned previously:
Today, the plan is estimated to have a $30 billion surplus,
meaning that if the future pension entitlements for all employees
and retirees were paid out today, the pension fund would have $30
billion to spare.
Two weeks ago Ottawa introduced legislation....
Complicating the debate is the fact that the pension fund and
the surplus exist only on paper. In reality, the government has
always used the employee contributions to help finance its
programs. The benefits are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis from
budget revenues....
So if the employees were to win the battle for even richer
pension benefits, government spending would automatically go up.
1710
I hope the Reform Party would agree with that. That would leave
less money for social programs like health care and less money to
reduce the personal income taxes of all Canadians.
I think it only follows that the surplus truly belongs to the
Canadian people. Because we assume all the risk, it only follows
that it belongs to the Canadian people. According to the Toronto
Star, “The government is on solid ground”.
I am surprised the Reform Party, which tries to say that it is
about a cut to income tax, would miss the opportunity to find a
source for the reduction of income taxes; that a party which
would like to see a reduction in our debt would lose the
opportunity to find a social fund so we could reduce our debt.
More important, we can have a social fund to allocate
expenditures for our health care program.
I think I have made the basic points on the issue. With the
permission of the Speaker, I will answer any questions that
members opposite would like to pose.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that there
be a period of questions and comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
not planning on indulging in the debate today, but after the
speech from my hon. friend I felt compelled to take part.
He talked about democracy and what this House is all about. I
agree that presumably the House is all about democracy. However,
this is now the 53rd or 54th time—
Mr. Ken Epp: The 52nd time.
Mr. Dale Johnston: My colleague from Elk Island informs
me that this is the 52nd time that time allocation has been
imposed on debate in the House.
I can recall a day when the rat pack sat on this side of House.
The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who is now the
government House leader, was one of the illustrious members of
the rat pack. He used to go into absolute convulsions whenever
the Conservatives moved time allocation or closure in the House.
As a matter of fact, he used to say things like “Here comes the
jackboots. Bring out the brown shirts. Here comes closure
again”. Over and over the member for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell would say things like that whenever
debate was restricted in the House.
He is the very person who reared up on his hind legs with much
authority, to the chagrin of people on this side, and today moved
time allocation with a noticeable smirk on his face. He was very
much pleased that he could do whatever he could to make sure that
democracy did not take place. He limits debate time and time
again in the House.
1715
The Deputy Speaker: I have to interrupt the hon. member.
It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now
before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 33. Is it the pleasure of the
House adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 35. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea?
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 37. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands
deferred. The results of the vote will apply to Motions Nos. 45
and 53.
The next question is on Motion No. 41. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 43. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 49. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 51. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
1740
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on
this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 5 to 7, 14, 31, 40 and
48.
1745
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 5 to 7, 14, 31, 40 and 48
defeated.
1750
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following: Motions Nos. 9, 16, 38, 33, 34, 35, 37, 41, 42, 43,
49, 50 and 51.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 38, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 33, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 35, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 37, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 41, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 42, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 43, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 49, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 50, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 51, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| 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
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 9, 16, 33, 34,
35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 49, 50 and 51 defeated. I therefore declare
the following motions defeated: Motions Nos. 10, 13, 39, 45, 46, 47,
53 and 54.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 12.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would 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
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 vote no, and I would like you to remove the name of the
member for St. Albert from that tally.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present today
vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I would vote no.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I also need to exclude the
member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley from that vote.
The Speaker: So ordered.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Canuel
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Mercier
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 169
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. I
therefore declare Motion No. 12 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion No. 3.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Canuel
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Mercier
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 169
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 11.
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.
1755
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present
vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be added
to the list of the official opposition, please.
Mr. John Nunziata: The independents in the House vote
yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Earle
| Epp
|
Gilmour
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wayne – 53
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 157
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 defeated. I
therefore declare Motion No. 11 defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following: Motion No. 8 and Motion No. 32.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Earle
| Epp
|
Gilmour
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wayne – 53
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 157
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Earle
| Epp
|
Gilmour
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wayne – 53
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 157
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 8 and 32
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 15. This is in Group No. 2.
A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 17 to 23, 26,
28 and 30.
1805
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Doyle
| Epp
| Gilmour
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Matthews
| McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Steckle
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne – 36
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| 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
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Solomon
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 174
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 defeated. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 17 to 23, 26, 28 and 30 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 36.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
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. I would like you to remove the name of the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast from that roll.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present would
like to vote yes to this fine motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote nay to this
motion, no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Brison
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Earle
| Hardy
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Power
| Proctor
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Vautour
| Wayne – 26
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 182
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 36 defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote
just taken to the following: Motions Nos. 44 and 52.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in that
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Brison
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Earle
| Hardy
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Power
| Proctor
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Vautour
| Wayne – 26
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 182
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 52, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Brison
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Earle
| Hardy
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Power
| Proctor
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Vautour
| Wayne – 26
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 182
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 44 and 52
defeated.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
1815
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 122
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Casson
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Solomon
| Steckle
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
Wayne – 85
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Chan
| Comuzzi
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Rocheleau
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and
the member for Surrey North concerning the taking of the division
on Bill C-260 scheduled at the conclusion of Private Members'
Business today. I believe you would find consent for the
following:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-260, all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second
reading shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until Tuesday, May 25, 1999, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1820
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise tonight to say a few
words on behalf of my colleague from Surrey North in support of
his private member's bill, Bill C-260.
I say at the outset that I find it absolutely incredible that
the government can move so expeditiously as it just did to shut
down debate on an important piece of legislation. For the 53rd
time the government moved time allocation, a form of closure. It
closed down the debate on Bill C-78, the government pension bill.
It rams through the House legislation that we see is of real
importance to Canadians.
I am specifically speaking now in favour of Private Member's
Bill C-260, which is votable. We see foot dragging which takes
up valuable time in the House, when for all intents and purposes
this is a very simple and straightforward bill which makes a
minor change to the Young Offenders Act. This bill could be put
through quickly with all-party support.
In fact, one would think that would happen, because ironically
enough the justice minister and the justice department have seen
fit to pick up the idea of my colleague from Surrey North.
Basically the content of Bill C-260 is included in the justice
minister's new youth justice act, Bill C-68, which is also being
debated in the House.
What does Bill C-260 do? As I said, it is very simple and
straightforward. It involves a minor change to section 7.2 of
the Young Offenders Act. It would move that from a simple
summary conviction offence to a dual procedure or hybrid offence.
For the benefit of those at home viewing the debate tonight, we
have to ask what this bill would accomplish. It would hold
parents, guardians or others more accountable, the people who
sign contracts with the courts to take on the responsibility for
youth who have been charged with criminal offences.
Rather than incarcerating those youths, the courts would grant
bail. The youths would be out in the community but under certain
conditions imposed by the courts. Those conditions, once
imposed, are meant to be respected. Adults, often parents but
sometimes guardians or others, sign a contract with the courts
and take on the responsibility of ensuring that the youths follow
those conditions.
What exactly does the bill do to hold the parents or guardians
more accountable? It would simply change the present possible
penalty from six months imprisonment to two years less a day.
Nothing else would change.
The justice minister has paid my colleague from Surrey North the
ultimate compliment that can be given to a private member,
certainly to a member from an opposition party. She has included
his Bill C-260 virtually verbatim in her new youth justice act,
Bill C-68.
We have heard from members on the government side during the
preceding debate on this bill. This is the third hour of a
votable private member's bill.
In the preceding two hours of debate members from all parties
congratulated my colleague from Surrey North for accomplishing
that, for bringing forward a bill that has actually been included
in government legislation.
1825
Another question would have to be asked. Why would my colleague
from Surrey North not simply withdraw Bill C-260 since it is
included in the government's new youth legislation?
Unfortunately we have seen time and time again that government
legislation for many reasons can take a considerable amount of
time to get passed, especially omnibus bills that are not like
Bill C-260 that contain clauses that are certainly arguable as to
their worth to Canadian society and to the general public. The
new Bill C-68, the youth justice act, is going to be one of those
bills. There is going to be some very contentious parts to that
legislation if it ever comes before the House.
There is another thing hanging over all this legislation. We
keep hearing rumours that the government is going to prorogue
parliament in June. Legislation on the Order Paper will die. We
are very concerned that the youth justice act could be one of
those pieces of legislation that dies at the end of this session.
Then it is of little benefit to anyone that one of the sections
in Bill C-68 that we support is in effect Bill C-260 put forward
by my colleague.
In our estimation there is some need to push this forward. My
colleague was fortunate enough to begin with to win the lottery
and have his name drawn to debate the bill. Then he was
successful in convincing the subcommittee which deems certain
private members' legislation votable that his bill was important
enough to be made votable. Obviously it met all the criteria for
a votable item. He was able to argue sufficiently and it was made
votable.
The bill is now before the House for its third hour of debate
and it will be votable. We just heard the hon. government whip
say that although it will be deferred, there will be a vote on
Bill C-260. All members will be able to vote on it.
It is important that we vote and that we push this issue along
and that we have that opportunity to pass this very important
change into law as quickly as possible, rather than wait to have
it brought forward some day in Bill C-68.
Some people have said that this bill is too harsh because it
will hold parents accountable. It is important to point out, as I
did earlier, that the only thing it changes is the possible
maximum sentence that can be levelled by the court against
parents or guardians who do not live up to their responsibility,
who do not fulfil the contract they sign with the courts when
they take the responsibility for youth who have been charged for
criminal activities.
An hon. member: It is already in the legislation.
Mr. Jay Hill: The reality is that the bill as it is
presently constituted will accomplish that. The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice was heckling a moment ago
saying that it is already in the act.
Of course it is in the act, but as has been pointed out by
previous speakers, being able to hold the parents accountable
with more deterrence that will be provided by the possibility of
a two year sentence is not in the act.
That is the reason we must push this through to a vote. I expect
that members from all sides of the House, including government
members who obviously intend to support Bill C-68 which includes
this change, would want to support Bill C-260.
1830
Unless they would want to be called hypocrites, which I am sure
no member would want to be called, I am sure they will actually
support the legislation when it comes to a vote.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House of
Commons this evening.
As most hon. members know, the government fully supports the
concept behind the bill. We have incorporated it completely into
the proposed legislation, Bill C-68, the youth criminal justice
act which currently is at second reading in the House. The
Reform Party member for Surrey North should take some credit for
that inclusion.
Let me first look at the current situation under the Young
Offenders Act. It provides that young people who are denied bail
can be released to a responsible adult who undertakes in writing
to care for the youth and ensure compliance with the conditions
set by the court. Currently a wilful failure by the responsible
adult to comply with the undertaking is a summary conviction
offence.
Bill C-260 would amend the Young Offenders Act to make the
offence of wilfully failing to comply with an undertaking a
hybrid rather than a summary conviction offence, that is give an
option for the offence to be treated as a summary conviction or
as an indictable offence with the possibility of a prison term
for up to two years at the discretion of the crown. The new
youth criminal justice act also provides for the same hybrid
offences treatment.
The government feels that a wilful failure to comply with an
undertaking to act as a responsible adult in relation to youth is
very serious. It is useful to allow a prosecutor to use
discretion as to what charge to bring forward.
It is no secret that we greatly appreciate the hon. member's
important contribution to the new youth criminal justice act.
However, the motion put forward by the government at this time
would allow parliament to deal with the issue in the more
comprehensive government youth justice bill that is already
before the House.
Once again it is important to note that the concept behind Bill
C-260 has been completely incorporated in Bill C-68. While Bill
C-260 seeks to amend the Young Offenders Act, Bill C-68 seeks to
replace the Young Offenders Act with an entirely new act, an
important element of the government's youth strategy. Therefore
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “that” and substituting the following therefor:
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
When the bill was before the House on March 15, at the
conclusion of the time for debate the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough had the floor and had six minutes
remaining in his speech.
The bill was subsequently debated on March 19 and the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough did not on that
occasion use his six minutes. I understand he is seeking the
floor floor now, and since he is rising on the amendment he may
take ten minutes.
1835
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendment
to the main motion. The amendment keeps in mind that Bill C-68
has borrowed from and incorporated much of the intent the hon.
member for Surrey North had in mind when the bill was originally
brought forward.
I acknowledge the ongoing efforts of the member for Surrey North
in this regard. Through no fault of his own and through no
desire of his own, he joined a very exclusive group in the
country, and that is being the survivor of a murdered victim. As
a parent I think the bill and the incorporation of the bill into
the Criminal Code serves as a tribute to his son Jesse.
This a very commendable focus of what in most circumstances
would be a very bitter and negative energy. He has put forward
what is a very positive motion which will hopefully help to
prevent, perhaps in some way, matters such as this where a parent
is not being held accountable and not making significant efforts
to supervise a young person who is bound by a court order.
There has been much discussion throughout the debate on Bill
C-260 about the new youth criminal justice act that has also been
debated in the Chamber. We in the Progressive Conservative Party
like all Canadians were looking forward to the changes that were
coming about as a result of deliberations and as a result of the
long delay endured on the issue of changes to the Young Offenders
Act.
As has been stated time and time again in the House, in the
media, in the coffee shops and in general debate throughout the
country, the Young Offenders Act was not serving its purpose, not
serving our criminal justice system, and not serving Canadians at
large.
Unfortunately the new bill is a disappointment. There was an
opportunity, which the minister chose not to exercise, to make
changes that would have had a more significant effect. That is
not to say that commendable changes have not come about.
Certainly there is an element through some effort on the part of
the member for Surrey North to bring in some form of parental
responsibility. It is a positive measure to have the ability now
to identify certain dangerous young offenders and the ability to
transfer certain types of offences. That would be seen in a
positive light.
However other offences have been excluded for some reason from
consideration. Although we are not through the final stages of
the bill, there will be an opportunity to propose amendments. At
least there will be an opportunity to fix some of the glaring
omissions on the part of the Department of Justice. Time will
tell.
The introduction of the new bill was given a great deal of focus
in the media. There was a great deal of hype and much discussion
outside the Chamber by the minister. It is with sort of a heavy
heart that we are facing a situation where this change to the
Young Offenders Act does not exactly hit the mark.
Some of the areas where obviously there is a downturn or a
failing is the inability to lower the age of criminal
responsibility to 10. There is also an omission in the area of
focusing on the use of weapons in the commission of a criminal
offence and making mandatory minimum sentences for young
offenders in situations where weapons have been used.
The focus of the bill was to be on violent versus non-violent
offences. There was much discussion and acrimony about the fact
that young people should be given an opportunity and should be
treated differently under our criminal justice system. That is
the philosophy of the old bill, of the juvenile delinquents act,
and of the bill before the House.
There is difficulty in saying that we have to be more pro-active
and pre-emptive when it comes to treating young people under our
criminal justice system. There has to be an acknowledgement that
the resources also have to be allotted.
1840
The enforcement and administration of the legislation have to
acknowledge that currently there is a funding shortage and that
currently the federal government is not holding up its end of the
bargain. The original intent of the old legislation, the Young
Offenders Act, was that the federal government would pick up 50%
of the cost of administration. Similarly the new legislation
would have the same fiscal or monetary attachment. That is not
the case.
We also know that the present social services are in many cases
the first line of defence, that is child welfare offices, offices
that have to deal with the protection of children. These offices
are drastically underfunded, yet at the same time the bill will
put a greater emphasis on those agencies.
I would be reticent not to mention the fact that the police are
given greater powers of discretion under the new bill. It is a
very laudable intention that police officers be allowed to
exercise greater discretion in the field and perhaps on occasion,
rather than formally charging a young person, be permitted to
take the young person to his or her parents or back to the
station and administer a tongue lashing, for lack of a better
word. Sometimes that will have a better impact on the young
person than having them go through the very formal and very
sterile court process.
With all of that in mind, if the intent of the new legislation
is to have this proactive attempt by police to circumvent more
formal processes, there also has to be an acknowledgement that it
will be a very onerous task for police in terms of taxing their
time, their effort and their current resources.
They simply do not have those resources. We know that because
time and time again we hear it from the policing community and
from the chiefs of police. We know that the RCMP is drastically
underfunded at this time. We know that its budgets have been cut
time and time again. In general terms we have seen billions cut
out of transfer payments to provinces that go to the
administration of justice in individual provinces.
It is nothing short of lip service. It is very lame for the
government to suggest that it will give more responsibility to
the police and the frontline agencies which will be tasked with
administering the new bill and at the same time tell them not
only that they will not get more money to do so but that they
will not get the same amount they used to have to administer the
Young Offenders Act. There is an absolutely hypocritical nature
to the bill.
With respect to what some other justice ministers in the
provinces have said, I will quote from the Alberta Minister of
Justice, Jon Havelock, who said in relation to contemplating the
tougher spin which has been put on the legislation that to
increase penalties, increase the jail time and ensure that those
who were repeatedly committing offences are dealt with more
appropriately under the act, the money will have to be in place.
New Brunswick justice minister, Greg Byrne, said that he could
not remain partisan when speaking about the new bill. He said
that it should be tougher on violent offenders. This creates an
interesting dilemma for the Minister of Justice because she has
cautioned Canadians that the provinces will have to come on side
and enforce the provisions of the bill which will become law
before the year 2000.
During the minister's year long consultation process with many
of the provinces she stated continually that they were being
properly consulted. Consulted is one thing but being actually
listened to is another. It has become patently obvious that the
ministers of justice of many of provinces, including Alberta,
Ontario, Prince Edward Island and even New Brunswick, are sorrily
disappointed with the outcome and the final draft of the bill.
It demonstrates to me that it is another example of broken
promises. If this is the consultation that takes place, and yet
at the end of the day the provinces are ignored, it is not
something that will further good relations.
The federal government and the provincial governments agreed a
long time ago that they would divide the cost of administering
the Young Offenders Act. This is certainly the intention of the
provinces today. They are still asking the federal government to
pick up its fair share of the cost of the administration. No
where have we ever seen the commitment of the federal government
to do so.
1845
The minister's attempt to please all of the provinces by taking
bits and pieces of the suggestions and implementing them into the
bill will eventually please no one, and I would suggest that
includes the hon. member for Surrey North.
With the introduction of Bill C-68 we saw a lot of bells and
whistles and a lot of publicity about what it is going to
accomplish, but at the end of the day we saw a very cumbersome
bill that will be extremely difficult to administer. The bill is
twice as lengthy and includes twice as many clauses as the old
Young Offenders Act. We know that the old Young Offenders Act
was a very cumbersome piece of legislation. This will be a field
day for lawyers, a nightmare for judges, and it will not
accomplish for Canadians what we had hoped it would.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it was going to be a pleasure to rise to speak to
this bill and to talk about the great things that my colleague
from Surrey North has done in this House, and about how even the
government has inserted what the member has in this bill into its
legislation.
We heard the government whip say “Let's defer the vote”, and
we all thought that was fine, but in the middle of the debate the
member for Elgin—Middlesex—London moved a motion to hoist the
bill. The people who are listening probably do not understand
that the motion to hoist will delay the bill for six months in
order that we can have a look at it. Maybe they think that is a
good idea. However, in parliamentary terms the government has
killed this private member's bill. The bill is dead.
An hon. member: Not true.
Mr. John Reynolds: The parliamentary secretary said that
it has not been killed. She should walk down to the clerk's
table and find out a little about parliament because this bill is
dead. That is what they did on the other side. The Liberals have
killed this young offenders bill which would have benefited this
country. It is a shame.
What is really a shame about it is that we have the government
interfering in Private Members' Business. This was not done by a
backbencher; it was done by the government with a plan to kill
this private member's bill.
The public may not understand what the bill addresses. It calls
for parents and guardians of young offenders to be held
accountable when they fail to discharge their responsibilities.
It could have been law in this country by May 26, when we return,
but the government has killed the bill. It has killed this great
idea, which even it admits is a great idea because it included it
in its legislation.
Liberals might say that we should just wait until their
legislation comes along, but we know that the government does not
intend to pass Bill C-68 in this session. The House is going to
prorogue before the bill ever sees the light of day because the
government has taken so much heat over the fact that certain
things are not in the bill that should be there. It will let the
bill drag on. The government House leader has not brought the
bill back into the House for debate. We have had 20 minutes
here, an hour there, two hours there, but there is no government
behind Bill C-68.
We do not even see it on our agenda of “must haves” before we
break for the summer. That is a shame. It is an absolute shame
that the government spent a couple of million bucks on PR for the
bill to try to make the minister and the government look good and
it is not even on the agenda as an item to be considered before
we leave for summer holidays. The government could have had the
bill of the member for Surrey North which would have made that
part of it law before the summer, but it has not done that.
Democracy is really great on the other side. The Liberals have
killed this bill. They have killed this young offenders section.
They just do not want to see a member from this side getting
credit for doing it. They will pay the price for that. What is
even worse is that young people will pay the price. They will
pay the price because this was a good bill. Even the Minister of
Justice said that when she brought down her legislation. She
said that this was incorporated in Bill C-68 because it was a
good idea, but then they killed this bill today. They are going
to kill Bill C-68.
An hon. member: That is why we incorporated it.
Mr. John Reynolds: They are sitting over there yapping
away. A little yapping here and a little yapping there, but it
makes no sense.
This bill could have passed. We could have supported it, we
could have voted for it and it would have been part of the
present bill because we are not going to see Bill C-68 for a long
time.
They can talk all they want, but what they have done is killed
democracy and killed this member's bill. That is what a hoist
means. If they do not understand that, they should sit with you,
Mr. Speaker, to get a few lessons on parliamentary democracy. If
they have been conned by their own House leader that this will
not kill the bill, they do not understand how parliament works.
I say shame on the government for hurting democracy tonight and
for killing this private member's bill.
1850
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member for Surrey North
speaks now, he will close the debate.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
is not much to say. I was prepared to thank the hon. members for
supporting the bill all the way through, as far as it got, but
now we see what the government is really up to.
The bill was meant to amend the Young Offenders Act, which is
the current law of the country. I understand and appreciate the
fact that the minister did choose to use it in the new
legislation, but we do not know where that legislation is going
to wind up. It has been pushed back and pushed back. We do not
know if it is ever going to see the light of day. I am not
prepared to take a pig in a poke and act on faith alone.
I am disappointed about this, but I have dealt with more severe
things in my life. I think most members can attest to that.
This piece of legislation was an idea that was prompted by some
personal experience. It would have been good legislation for the
country. It would have allowed the crown an opportunity to
increase the sanctions on parents who fail to supervise their
children properly.
In effect, my bill is dead. That is fine. That is part of the
deal here. All I can hope for is that Bill C-68, the new youth
justice legislation, does come into force sometime. Judging by
what I have seen, I do not anticipate that will happen.
There is not an awful lot more I can say on this other than—
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
do not see a quorum in the House to listen to my hon. colleague's
final comments on this important legislation.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1900
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today,
all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put
and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until
Tuesday, May 25, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
March 5, I raised the issue of charges pending against Mike
Kipling and the pursuit of these charges against this man.
There are many issues surrounding the government's
administration of the anthrax vaccine to Canadian forces
personnel last spring in the Persian Gulf. A vaccine researcher
corresponded with my office earlier this year and raised some
very interesting issues.
This researcher was informed by the Department of National
Defence that it was a matter of military policy that forces
personnel were to be provided with specific written disclosure of
contraindications and possible adverse effects associated with
immunization. As well, prior to immunization, forces personnel
should be briefed as to the risks of the diseases the vaccination
is supposed to prevent.
Sergeant Kipling was left with serious and unanswered questions
after reading the acknowledgement form. This vaccine researcher
claims that there is no data addressing how carcinogenic this
vaccine may be nor about any possible reproductive effects.
The Nuremberg Code of 1947 clearly states that in terms of
following orders:
Is the government able to say without a doubt that voluntary
consent was given? I think not.
I would like to hear from the government, in response to my
comments, why the Liberal administration supports people losing
their right to decide what goes into their bodies simply by
virtue of the fact that they have joined the Canadian forces?
It appears, from the Food and Drug Administration in the United
States, that the company which provided the anthrax vaccine in
question may have re-labelled a lot of outdated drugs.
Furthermore, the government did no independent testing of the
chemical package it wanted so desperately to inject into the body
of Sergeant Kipling and other Canadian forces personnel.
Will the government commit here and now that it will review
policies concerning vaccinations to allow for individual choice
and the possibility of waiving vaccinations and whether some
quarantine during testing might suffice to meet the goal of
protecting the population at large?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year Canada
responded to the threat posed in the gulf by Saddam Hussein. We
dispatched the HMCS Toronto, aircraft and personnel from
435 squadron in order to do our part as a member of the
international community.
1905
Our maritime personnel provided escort duties for a U.S. navy
carrier battle group and contributed to maritime interdiction
operations. Our aviators and support personnel provided
technical air to air refuelling in support of the allied air
effort in the region. Our maritime and air personnel did an
excellent job.
The dangers faced by the approximately 360 Canadians in the gulf
were very real. They included the possibility that biological
weapons could be used against our personnel.
In all good conscience, we could not send our people into a
potentially dangerous situation without ensuring they were
properly protected. Part of this protection was inoculating them
against anthrax. As we all know, anthrax is a very deadly
disease in which individuals are not aware they are sick until it
is too late to treat them. We had to protect Canadian personnel
against the use of such biological weapons. To do otherwise
would be both irresponsible and unconscionable.
The government has worked in good faith and in the best
interests of the men and women of the Canadian forces to provide
them with the best protection possible in what we must remember
was a potentially dangerous operation.
We recognize that Sergeant Kipling and his family have no doubt
experienced considerable stress over this situation. However,
cohesion and discipline are fundamental elements in an effective
armed force. For that reason, disobeying an order, any order, is
a serious offence that should be treated appropriately by the
military justice system.
Sergeant Kipling has been charged with wilfully disobeying an
order under section 126 of the National Defence Act. The
decision to charge Sergeant Kipling and to proceed to a court
martial was made after very careful examination of the case and
is in accordance with current military law.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary
secretary, but the time provided for the answer has now expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)