CONTENTS
Monday, May 13, 1996
Bill C-12. Consideration resumed of report stage 2647
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2647
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2647
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 2649
Division on Motion No. 76 deferred. 2651
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2651
Division on Motion No. 81 deferred 2651
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2651
Division on Motion No. 80 deferred 2652
Division on Motion No. 93 deferred 2652
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2652
Division on Motion No. 92 deferred 2652
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2652
Division on Motion No. 112 deferred 2652
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2652
Division on Motion No. 113 deferred. 2652
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2652
Division on Motion No. 111 deferred. 2653
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2653
Division on Motion No. 128 deferred. 2653
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2653
Division on Motion No. 188 deferred. 2654
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2654
Division on Motion No. 192 deferred. 2654
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2654
Division on Motion No. 191 deferred. 2654
Division on Motion No. 215 deferred 2654
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2654
Division on Motion No. 214 deferred 2654
Division on Motion No. 219 deferred 2655
Division on Motion No. 216 deferred 2655
Division on motion No. 217 deferred 2656
Division on Motion No. 218 deferred 2656
Motions Nos. 9, 11 to 16, 19, 26 to 34, 37 to 71, 74, 77 to 79,82 to 91,
94 to 110, 114 to 127, 129 to 170, 172, 174 to 187,190, 193 to 199,
202 to 213 2656
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2656
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred 2660
Division on Motion No. 11 deferred 2660
Division on Motion No. 12 deferred 2660
Division on Motion No. 13 deferred 2660
Division on Motion No. 14 deferred 2661
Division on Motion No. 15 deferred 2661
Division on Motion No. 16 deferred 2661
Division on Motion No. 19 deferred 2661
Division on Motion No. 26 deferred 2661
Division on Motion No. 27 deferred 2661
Division on Motion No. 28 deferred 2662
Division on Motion No. 29 deferred 2662
Division on Motion No. 30 deferred 2662
Division on Motion No. 31 deferred 2662
Division on Motion No. 32 deferred 2662
Division on Motion No. 33 deferred 2662
Division on Motion No. 34 deferred 2663
Division on Motion No. 37 deferred 2663
Division on Motion No. 38 deferred 2663
Division on Motion No. 39 deferred 2663
Division on Motion No. 40 deferred 2663
Division on Motion No. 41 deferred 2663
Division on Motion No. 42 deferred 2664
Division on Motion No. 43 deferred 2664
Division on Motion No. 44 deferred 2664
Division on Motion No. 45 deferred 2664
Division on Motion No. 46 deferred 2664
Division on Motion No. 47 deferred 2664
Division on Motion No. 48 deferred 2665
Division on Motion No. 49 deferred 2665
Division on Motion No. 50 deferred 2665
Division on Motion No. 51 deferred 2665
Division on Motion No. 52 deferred 2665
Division on Motion No. 53 deferred 2665
Division on Motion No. 54 deferred 2666
Division on Motion No. 55 deferred 2666
Division on Motion No. 56 deferred 2666
Division on Motion No. 57 deferred 2666
Division on Motion No. 58 deferred 2666
Division on Motion No. 59 deferred 2666
Division on Motion No. 60 deferred 2667
Division on Motion No. 61 deferred 2667
Division on Motion No. 62 deferred 2667
Division on Motion No. 63 deferred 2667
Division on Motion No. 64 deferred 2667
Division on Motion No. 65 deferred 2667
Division on Motion No. 66 deferred 2668
Division on Motion No. 67 deferred 2668
Division on Motion No. 68 deferred 2668
Division on Motion No. 69 deferred 2668
Division on Motion No. 70 deferred 2668
Division on Motion No. 71 deferred 2668
Division on Motion No. 74 deferred 2669
Division on Motion No. 77 deferred 2669
Division on Motion No. 78 deferred 2669
Division on Motion No. 79 deferred 2669
Division on Motion No. 82 deferred 2669
Division on Motion No. 83 deferred 2669
Division on Motion No. 84 deferred 2670
Division on Motion No. 85 deferred 2670
Division on Motion No. 86 deferred 2670
Division on Motion No. 87 deferred 2670
Division on Motion No. 88 deferred 2670
Division on Motion No. 89 deferred 2670
Division on Motion No. 90 deferred 2671
Division on Motion No. 91 deferred 2671
Division on Motion No. 94 deferred 2671
Division on Motion No. 95 deferred 2671
Division on Motion No. 96 deferred 2671
Division on Motion No. 97 deferred 2671
Division on Motion No. 98 deferred 2672
Division on Motion No. 99 deferred 2672
Division on Motion No. 100 deferred 2672
Division on Motion No. 101 deferred 2672
Division on Motion No. 102 deferred 2672
Division on Motion No. 103 deferred 2672
Division on Motion No. 104 deferred 2673
Division on Motion No. 105 deferred 2673
Division on Motion No. 106 deferred 2673
Division on Motion No. 107 deferred 2673
Division on Motion No. 108 deferred 2673
Division on Motion No. 109 deferred 2673
Division on Motion No. 110 deferred 2674
Division on Motion No. 114 deferred 2674
Division on Motion No. 115 deferred 2674
Division on Motion No. 116 deferred 2674
Division on Motion No. 117 deferred 2674
Division on Motion No. 118 deferred 2674
Division on Motion No. 119 deferred 2675
Division on Motion No. 120 deferred 2675
Division on Motion No. 121 deferred 2675
Division on Motion No. 122 deferred 2675
Division on Motion No. 123 deferred 2675
Division on Motion No. 124 deferred 2675
Division on Motion No. 125 deferred 2676
Division on Motion No. 126 deferred 2676
Division on Motion No. 127 deferred 2676
Division on Motion No. 129 deferred 2676
Division on Motion No. 130 deferred 2676
Division on Motion No. 131 deferred 2676
Division on Motion No. 132 deferred 2677
Division on Motion No. 133 deferred 2677
Division on Motion No. 134 deferred 2677
Division on Motion No. 135 deferred 2677
Division on Motion No. 136 deferred 2677
Division on Motion No. 137 deferred 2677
Division on Motion No. 138 deferred 2678
Division on Motion No. 139 deferred 2678
Division on Motion No. 140 deferred 2678
Division on Motion No. 141 deferred 2678
Division on Motion No. 142 deferred 2678
Division on Motion No. 143 deferred 2678
Division on Motion No. 144 deferred 2679
Division on Motion No. 145 deferred 2679
Division on Motion No. 146 deferred 2679
Division on Motion No. 147 deferred 2679
Division on Motion No. 148 deferred 2679
Division on Motion No. 149 deferred 2679
Division on Motion No. 150 deferred 2680
Division on Motion No. 151 deferred 2680
Division on Motion No. 152 deferred 2680
Division on Motion No. 153 deferred 2680
Division on Motion No. 154 deferred 2680
Division on Motion No. 155 deferred 2680
Division on Motion No. 156 deferred 2681
Division on Motion No. 157 deferred 2681
Division on Motion No. 158 deferred 2681
Division on Motion No. 159 deferred 2681
Division on Motion No. 160 deferred 2681
Division on Motion No. 161 deferred 2681
Division on Motion No. 162 deferred 2682
Division on Motion No. 163 deferred 2682
Division on Motion No. 164 deferred 2682
Division on Motion No. 165 deferred 2682
Division on Motion No. 166 deferred 2682
Division on Motion No. 167 deferred 2682
Division on Motion No. 168 deferred 2683
Division on Motion No. 169 deferred 2683
Division on Motion No. 170 deferred 2683
Division on Motion No. 172 deferred 2683
Division on Motion No. 174 deferred 2683
Division on Motion No. 175 deferred 2683
Division on Motion No. 176 deferred 2684
Division on Motion No. 177 deferred 2684
Division on Motion No. 178 deferred 2684
Division on Motion No. 179 deferred 2684
Division on Motion No. 180 deferred 2684
Division on Motion No. 181 deferred 2684
Division on Motion No. 182 deferred 2685
Division on Motion No. 183 deferred 2685
Division on Motion No. 184 deferred 2685
Division on Motion No. 185 deferred 2685
Division on Motion No. 186 deferred 2685
Division on Motion No. 187 deferred 2685
Division on Motion No. 190 deferred 2686
Division on Motion No. 193 deferred 2686
Division on Motion No. 194 deferred 2686
Division on Motion No. 195 deferred 2686
Division on Motion No. 196 deferred 2686
Division on Motion No. 197 deferred 2686
Division on Motion No. 198 deferred 2687
Division on Motion No. 199 deferred 2687
Division on Motion No. 202 deferred 2687
Division on Motion No. 203 deferred 2687
Division on Motion No. 204 deferred 2687
Division on Motion No. 205 deferred 2687
Division on Motion No. 206 deferred 2688
Division on Motion No. 207 deferred 2688
Division on Motion No. 208 deferred 2688
Division on Motion No. 209 deferred 2688
Division on Motion No. 210 deferred 2688
Division on Motion No. 211 deferred 2688
Division on Motion No. 212 deferred 2689
Division on Motion No. 213 deferred 2689
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 53; Nays, 103 2689
Motions No. 2, 4, 5, 8 negatived 2690
Motion No. 6 agreed to on division: Yeas, 104;Nays, 52. 2690
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 31;Nays, 126 2691
(Motions Nos. 10A, 10, 20, 72, 80, 111, 191 negatived.) 2692
Motion No. 18 negatived on division: Yeas, 23;Nays, 134 2692
Motion No. 17 negatived on division: Yeas, 32;Nays 125 2693
Motion No. 36 agreed to on division: Yeas, 127;Nays, 30 2694
Motion No. 171 negatived on division: Yeas, 23;Nays, 134 2695
Motion No. 189 negatived on division: Yeas, 23;Nays, 135 2696
Motion for concurrence 2697
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 104; Nays, 55 2697
(Bill concurred in and read the second time.) 2698
Bill C-19. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 2698
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2704
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 2705
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2709
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2709
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2710
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2711
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2711
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2715
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 2715
Bill C-19. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 2717
Division on motion deferred 2719
2639
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 13, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Immigration and Refugee Board
should be dismantled and its functions subsumed into the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration where refugee claims would be heard and decided
by well trained and accountable immigration officers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address private member's
Motion No. 120 which calls for the dismantling of the Immigration
and Refugee Board. I will refer to the board as the IRB from here
on in.
This motion is in response to more than two years of inaction on
the part of the department of immigration and its political
management by the current government. For more than two years
the former minister and his replacement have skirted issues and
generally avoided questions, all the while refusing to take
responsibility for the inadequacies which exist within the
immigration portfolio.
Under the current Liberal regime the government has brought
forward legislation which has juggled the status quo and made
minuscule changes. However, it has not addressed the legitimate
concerns of Canadians who want the system fixed.
It must be hard for old style politicians to see past the trough of
political patronage and grasp the concept of populous opinion.
Since the time of Confederation the political machine in Canada
has been rife with corruption and the harbour of patronage. The
latest Liberal instalment is yet another chapter in the patronage
book. Many initiatives are undertaken to accommodate campaign
contributors, regardless of the cost to public funds or public safety.
The government is out of touch with the average Canadian, so I
will take this opportunity to inform it of how rank and file
Canadians view the shortcomings of the current immigration
system.
Canadians are a remarkable people. Their selfless commitment
to helping those less fortunate has gained the admiration of the
world. Canadians want to provide a safe refuge for those who,
through no fault of their own, are in legitimate danger of
persecution. This is our home and we are happy to share it with
those in need.
However, this responsibility has its limits. No one likes to be
taken advantage of and that is exactly what is occurring today.
Some of those who have come to our land seeking asylum are
fugitives, war criminals or people who have not been
straightforward in disclosing their situation or their past. The
current system does not allow for thorough scrutiny, resulting in
heightened risk to Canadians.
This situation did not arrive overnight. There has been a long
stream of inept decision making which has brought our
humanitarian efforts to the disastrous state which exists today.
Contrary to routine embellishment by ministers of immigration,
past and present, there is plenty that can be done to rectify the
situation. It involves some creativity, hard work and may upset
some of those who have been getting fat off overburdened
taxpayers. These criteria alone would cause the minister to run
away in fear, yet we with a Reform backbone are willing to make
the changes in the interest of Canadians.
Let us look at the function and makeup of the IRB. The IRB was
created in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's 1985 ruling
in the case of Singh v. the Minister of Employment and
Immigration. The supreme court, under the direction of Chief
Justice Bertha Wilson, had ruled in Singh that all refugee claimants
were to be granted all hearings in accordance with standards of
fundamental justice and that the prior practice violated those
standards. The board was also empowered to hear the appeals of
those who had been ordered removed from Canada.
The decision was predicated on the theory that the IRB would be
a determining body able to sort out those seeking asylum under the
United Nations definition of a conventional refugee from those
simply seeking entrance to Canada. From this point on the trouble
starts.
2640
Let me start by addressing the makeup of the board. The IRB,
which is comprised of over 235 amply remunerated appointees, is
both larger and better paid than is appropriate. The body incurs an
operating cost of over $80 million a year, not including the cost to
legal aid and social services which result from their decisions.
By dismantling the IRB and subsuming its function into the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the system would
become more accountable, more cost effective, more ethical and
would fulfil our humanitarian obligations.
Like all other appointed quasi-judicial bodies, the IRB is
autonomous in its decision making practices. As the minister of
immigration is so fond of saying, it is at arm's length to the
government.
(1110 )
Unfortunately it was not an acceptable form of recall. This
process could take as long as five years and fall outside the
mandate of an elected government. Those making decisions on
behalf of Canadians should be directly accountable for their
actions. Without the direction of the House of Commons, the IRB
is pursuing its own mandate regardless of the wants and needs of
Canadians.
Many of those who land in Canada as refugees should have been
considered immigrants, others should have been denied entry
altogether. As Canadians we have an obligation to accommodate
only those who qualify as convention refugees under the definition
outlined by the United Nations.
The United Nations definition of a convention refugee is one
who, because of a membership in a particular political or social
group, religion, race or nationality, cannot return to his or her own
country for fear of serious persecution. The UN estimates that in
1993 there were over 20 million displaced persons in the world. Of
these only 60,000 remain genuine refugees. 1994-95 reflects the
same kind of statistics.
The UN reports that 25,000 of the 60,000 who were in need of
immediate resettlement were settled worldwide. Canada accepted
25,000 refugees in 1993. Therefore either Canada settled every
single refugee in the world or the formula for determining the
status is flawed. I believe it to be the latter.
A clear definition has been laid down by the UN. Unfortunately
the IRB interpretation of that definition has created considerable
uncertainty regarding the determination of refugee status. The
average acceptance rate for industrialized countries has
traditionally hovered around 14 per cent. Canada's acceptance rate
is presently hovering between 70 per cent and 90 per cent. Clearly
the definition of refugee has undergone radical expansion in
Canada.
Some may argue the merits of having such a high approval rate.
However, the ramifications of these practices is far reaching and
not as noble as one may think. I will address this issue later in my
speech.
The IRB has redefined its mandate and practices outside that of
its inception and that of any other practice exercised by signatories
of the UN convention.
There must be a clear formula for refugee determination and it
must be followed in all cases. Unless a nation has proven itself to
be a systematic violator of the terms of the UN treaty, then that
nation should be considered a safe third country for the purposes of
refugee determination.
Currently the majority of cases heard by the IRB involve inland
claimants, those people who enter Canada and seek refugee status.
Many of these people have paid their way to Canada and only seek
refugee status because of Canada's liberal practices. Canada
operates under the legal fiction that there are no safe third
countries. As such, virtually all migrants regardless of their
previous country of residence, are granted refugee hearings on
request. I can point to the United States, England, Germany and
even Israel, that according to Canada, are refugee producing
nations.
I believe it is entirely appropriate and does not contravene the
decision to deny claimants refugee hearings who come from safe
third countries. This is in accordance with the UN definition. This
opinion is shared by Canadians but not by the Immigration and
Refugee Board.
The practices of the IRB have caused two streams of
immigration into Canada; those who qualify as immigrants and
those who slip through as refugees. There are two losers in this
scenario: the legitimate refugee who is not granted access to
Canada and the taxpayer who is forced to support huge bills which
result from appeals, legal aid and social assistance. Claimants that
do not have a legitimate claim to seek asylum in Canada carry a
huge price tag.
The average cost to the taxpayer per claimant in terms of legal
aid, court time and social assistance is between $30,000 and
$60,000, multiplied by 25,000 refugee claimants accepted
annually, the bill is well over $1 billion. This amount comes close
to matching the total budget of the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees. With that budget the UNHRC manages
to care for, resettle and repatriate five million displaced persons a
year.
(1115 )
In other words, Canada spends the same amount of money on a
few thousand cases as the UN does on five million. There is
definitely a problem. The primary goal of Canada's refugee system
is to provide humanitarian relief. Therefore, a reduced emphasis on
2641
inland processing is needed in order to focus a greater reliance on
overseas selection.
Overseas claimants are confined to refugee camps surrounded by
barbed wire and armed soldiers. These people have been denied the
most basic of human needs, yet their plight is forsaken by those
who abuse the Canadian refugee system.
In addition to the humanitarian gains inherent in this approach,
costs to the taxpayer would be substantially reduced. Contrary to
the exorbitant costs attributed to inland claimants, the cost of
resettling overseas claimants averages between $2,500 to $3,000
per claim. This is fair, it is ethical and it is what the IRB was
established to do, help those most in need.
We may ask ourselves why dismantle the IRB, why not just
change its mandate? I do not believe it is that simple. The IRB is a
hotbed for political patronage appointments. Merit is not always a
factor or a motive. The IRB is unresponsive to the interests of
Canadians and has become a representative of special interests
from the immigration industry perpetuating a system which drains
public moneys for its own gain; the more the merrier as long as the
taxpayer is paying. This is accomplished by broadening the
definition of refugees beyond either what the people of Canada or
the United Nations for that matter have ever proposed.
In many instances IRB members have been confused between
the terms of persecution and prosecution by allowing fugitives,
terrorists, outlaws and political dissidents into Canada under the
guise of refugees. Some of these undesirables are believed to be
channelled through Canadian social assistance funds back to the
political regimes which perpetuate violence, genocide and drugs,
not the element which tugs at the heart strings of generous
Canadians. I believe Canadians have been duped into believing
otherwise.
Under current guidelines refugee hearings conducted by the IRB
are to be non-confrontational. In other words, board members and
staff must take pains to avoid engaging in questioning, introducing
evidence or employing a tone that would suggest to the claimant
the onus of providing proof of legitimacy lies with them.
It is a privilege to be granted access to the best country in the
world. There needs to be a system of determining refugees which is
thorough, efficient, cost effective and fair. The IRB is not, hence
the fact that it must be dismantled.
The House may ask what will serve in its place. I am glad that
question was asked because no responsible piece of legislation
should be presented unless it is well researched and includes a plan
of implementation. I assure the House this motion includes both.
I am proposing the IRB be entirely dismantled and replaced by a
body of well trained immigration officers who have the ability
individually to determine refugee claims. These officers would
receive intensive training in refugee acceptance guidelines. This
measure would establish government policies and procedures
which would need to be followed in each and every case.
The performance of these officers would be scrutinized and
regularly reviewed by departmental officials under the jurisdiction
of the deputy minister of immigration and citizenship, thereby
implementing the element of accountability which has been absent
from the present model.
Some may argue replacing the IRB with a body of trained
immigration officials directly accountable to the deputy minister
will lead to political intervention in the determination process.
There could be a valid argument here. However, Reform proposes
that members of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees monitor refugee acceptance guidelines in Canada and act
as a check and balance on the process.
Our mandate to accept and resettle convention refugees is
obligatory as signatories of the treaty. The UNHCR would be able
to inform the minister and Canadians of questionable trends in
refugee processing.
(1120 )
This intervention would end the pandering of the immigration
industry interest which is so prevalent thus far. Immigration
officers would be empowered to investigate and question the
legitimacy of all claimants in the interest of Canadians. The
decision of verifying and accepting a claim would be rendered by
individual hearing officers rather than by an IRB member, a
patronage appointment.
This method of intervention would ensure full disclosure of
information, including that which is incriminating. Why should we
provide asylum to those who have committed crimes in other
lands? I know the Liberals prefer to see that, as they have often
expressed, but unfortunately most Canadians do not agree with
that. There are far too many needy claimants in the world to take
risks on those with chequered pasts.
By empowering our immigration officials with fact finding
abilities there is a greater chance of weeding out those who are not
deserving of asylum in Canada.
The IRB is ineffective in determining refugee claimants as
described in the UN definition of a convention refugee. The IRB
has a history of catering to the immigration industry, lining the
pockets of immigration lawyers, advocacy groups and
organizations with hard earned taxpayer dollars.
The IRB has broadened the Canadian definition of a refugee to
the point that anyone entering Canada has a nine out of ten shot at
refugee status. Of all who reach Canada, only 1 per cent are ever
deported. This is a joke that undermines the immigration and
refugee system in the eyes of Canadians.
2642
The IRB has repeatedly cost the Canadian taxpayer, the board
itself, $80 million a year. That is a disgusting display of partisan
patronage which must stop now.
One would think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
would embrace a plan such as this. It would restore integrity and
accountability to a portfolio which is severely lacking. It would
demonstrate to the Canadian public that she cares about the
situation and responsible with their hard earned tax dollars. It
would portray her as a minister concerned with the safety of
Canadians, dedicated to Canada's humanitarian obligations.
There is only one problem. She would have to fire all her friends
and those of the previous minister, which I do not think would
happen. That is a serious obstacle for this minister and the entire
Liberal Party. The only jobs, jobs, jobs they care about are
patronage jobs.
We on this side of the House see things a whole lot differently.
We want to take the immigration system and make it effective,
accountable and ethical. We want governments to implement
programs which serve Canadians without the added expense of
patronage jobs. We want the refugee determination process to be
conducted by well trained, non-partisan immigration officials. This
is not a Christmas wish list. This is the bare minimum which is to
be expected from a responsible government.
Our plan would result in the number of persons accepted as
convention refugees through the inland process being be sharply
reduced.
I am bringing forward a motion which is in the best interest of
Canadians by implementing a more effective system of refugee
determination without the pomp and circumstance of bloated
patronage appointments and the pandering to special interest
demands.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Motion No. 120 by the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast advocating the elimination of the
Immigration and Refugee Board.
Let us examine that which is to be destroyed by this motion. The
IRB, an independent administration tribunal, was to identify those
who need our protection as convention refugees.
In 1989 the IRB was established so that refugee claimants would
have the right to a hearing in order to explain their claim
personally. This resulted following a supreme court decision which
indicated the claimants had a right to an oral hearing when
questions of credibility were at stake. As well, the IRB was formed
in order to respond to charges that the former system was not
impartial. A return to the former system would only lead to the
same criticism and legal challenges which plagued it.
(1125)
The IRB is comprised of three divisions. The refugee division of
the IRB deals exclusively with claims to convention refugee status.
Before the division comes into the picture, a senior immigration
officer of Citizenship and Immigration Canada determines whether
a claimant is eligible to claim convention refugee status. If eligible,
claimants are referred to the IRB for determination. Claims are
usually heard by a two member panel, although in a number of
situations decisions can be made by a single member.
The IRB also plays the key role in adjudicating all immigration
inquiries. This is handled by the adjudication division of the IRB
which is mandated to conduct immigration inquiries and detention
reviews. Inquiries are held at the request of department officials to
determine whether persons are to be admitted to or removed from
Canada.
The appeal division of the IRB is in charge of handling appeals
by Canadians citizens or permanent resident sponsors in cases
where the department officials have rejected an application for
permanent residence made by a close family member.
It also handles appeals for removal orders issued by the board's
adjudication division or department officials against permanent
residents, visa holders or convention refugee claimants who have
been convicted of a serious crime in Canada, who have made a
material misrepresentation on their application for permanent
residence, or who have not complied with the terms and conditions
of their landings.
As well, the appeal division handles appeals by the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration against decisions of the board's
adjudication division. The minister may reject or admit the subject
of an immigration inquiry.
As everyone can see from this description, the IRB performs an
extremely important and complex function. Transferring the IRB's
function to the department would not be a small feat. It would be
expensive and would not add anything positive. Most important, it
would seriously compromise the impartiality of the refugee
determination process.
We must do everything possible to avoid a perception that
refugee determining officers are seen as simply doing the will of
the government of the day. Impartiality is imperative. The
independence of the IRB ensures the principles of our charter of
rights and freedoms are preserved.
Our charter provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Refugee status determination requires particular skills and
expertise. It requires personnel who have knowledge and
understand-
2643
ing of the refugee experience. Departmental officials could be
trained to do the job of IRB members, but we must keep in mind
current members were selected because they already had many of
the qualities necessary for the job.
As such, there would in essence be no sense in moving these
positions to the department. Moreover, regardless of whether the
IRB were dismantled, the qualities required of refugee decision
makers would not change one bit. The bottom line is that
transferring the functions of the IRB to the department would mean
significant and unnecessary expenditures and would also
compromise the impartial nature of the refugee determination
process which the IRB performs so effectively. This latter point is
crucial. It is the reason I must reject the hon. member's motion.
(1130)
It is important to be aware that the previous Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration recently introduced changes to the
IRB. This includes downsizing the IRB from 175 members to 112
for a cost saving of $6 million. Also, an independent panel will be
set up to choose new IRB members and reappoint current ones. The
selection process prior to this change was previously the
responsibility of the minister.
This is evidence that the IRB is continually reacting to a
changing environment and is evolving. The need to evolve however
does not imply that we should dispose of the entire system. If there
is a problem, we fix it. We make changes. We do not mindlessly
destroy what is already created and in place.
To destroy and dismantle will not solve anything. It will not
accomplish a thing. This government has worked hard ever since
its inception to make sure that Canada's refugee determination
system is fair, to be certain that it is affordable and that it is also
sustainable. The changes that have already been made to the IRB
are a clear example of this. We have an excellent refugee program
that will only continue to improve.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak to Motion M-120 tabled by the hon. member
for Calgary Northeast, who wants the Immigration and Refugee
Board or IRB to be dismantled.
This motion has already been debated on December 14. The hon.
member wants IRB functions to be subsumed under the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
He put forward several reasons to justify his motion, and I agree
with some of them because they are quite valid. He wants to end
patronage, partisan appointments and the renewal of
commissioners' mandate. He wants to end political patronage, the
tradition of rewarding election campaign friends and supporters by
appointing them to highly paid, prestigious positions, like that
of IRB commissioner.
However, I totally disagree with the hon. member's opinion that
the board should be dismantled. Although I recognize that there are
indeed some operational problems, I think the IRB is a valuable
organization that must be preserved.
The IRB was created in 1989 following a 1985 Supreme Court
ruling on the Singh case. The ruling stipulated that refugees and
asylum seekers too are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and entitled to a hearing in accordance with the
standards of fundamental justice.
The Supreme Court ruled that the charter of rights and freedoms
must be respected in the refugee determination and admission
process.
This process must also take place before an impartial
organization, an independent tribunal, as is the case with the IRB.
The IRB is the largest independent quasi-judicial tribunal in
Canada. It was established by Parliament to rule on refugee claims
and immigration appeals.
(1135)
Since 1993, it is also responsible for the arbitration function as it
relates to immigration inquiries and the review of the grounds for
detention. The IRB administers a budget of approximately $77
million per year and, as of May 1, had 178 board members, whose
wages range from $73,400 to $142,400. These are well-paid jobs,
board members earning $90,000 a year on average.
There is a serious problem, which has been raised by the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast, with appointment and
reappointment of members. The Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration periodically reviews some of these
appointments, and we have noticed that many are politically
motivated. Sometimes, those selected lack the necessary expertise.
Never having worked with immigrant or refugee serving
organizations, they do not always have the skills required to carry
out their duties.
The board has heard the testimonies of two former board
members, who condemned the incompetence of some board
members. There is even one board member who was disbarred as a
lawyer only to be later appointed to the board by this Liberal
government.
The government told us it wanted to improve the board member
selection process. An advisory committee, the Gordon Fairweather
committee, after the name of its chairman, was established. This is
some obscure committee, whose operations we know nothing
about. For instance, we do not know on what basis the board
members are selected, whether or not interviews are conducted and
if appraisals are taken into account. The role played by the IRB in
2644
appointing and reappointing members when their terms of office
expire is not known.
The official opposition, and the hon. member for Bourassa in
particular, have asked that the chairman of this committee appear
before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
along with an IRB representative to explain to us what procedure is
used to select and appoint board members. Unfortunately, our
request was denied by the Liberal majority on the committee.
We Bloc members oppose Motion M-120, even though we agree
with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Calgary
Northeast. We do not think that the solution is to dismantle the
IRB, but to bring about major changes to this paralegal body.
Transferring the IRB's functions to public servants is not the
solution, because the minister and the government display
partisanship when appointing the deputy minister or senior
officials to whom these public servants are accountable.
In the past, when public servants were responsible for the
refugee status determination process, the decision was sometimes
made in secret. There was no obligation to hear those who were
seeking asylum. This is why the Supreme Court ruled that a
paralegal body was required to make decisions on such requests.
Moreover, I cannot agree with a motion from a party that has
shown no interest in the cause of refugees. This motion only seeks
to force Canada to drastically reduce the number of refugees
currently allowed into the country. The Reform Party has shown a
great deal of hostility towards immigrants and refugees, while also
recently making discriminatory comments towards homosexuals
and blacks. It also displays some animosity towards women and
minorities. Therefore, we cannot support this motion.
(1140)
There are problems with the IRB. One of the most important
ones is, in our opinion, the fact that it takes much too long to hear
claims, particularly in the case of an appeal. The IRB must improve
its productivity, and its members must make better and more
consistent decisions.
There are many problems in the IRB office in Montreal. Last
week, a board member was arrested, and charged with making
death threats to an IRB hearing officer. He was charged with
intercepting private conversations, having a restricted weapon in
his possession, harassing and of making harassing phone calls.
These are serious charges. As things stand, the board member has
not been suspended, even if his case is already before a court.
Incidents such as these do undermine the credibility of the IRB.
This is why I am asking the minister and the chair of the IRB to
react and to suspend this board member until a final decision has
been reached in this case.
I would like to point out another problem with the IRB. I was
told that the IRB wants to privatize its documentation, information
and research service. This is an important service that provides
board members with the information they need about the asylum
seeker and his or her home country. I have even heard that a Liberal
member is involved in these efforts to privatize the documentation
service of the IRB. I do not think that would be a good idea. I think
we should reassure the employees who are afraid of losing their
jobs.
The situation worldwide is alarming: the number of refugees is
still on the rise. According to the High Commissioner for Refugees,
there are 27 million refugees, and 80 p. 100 of them are women and
children. Today's newspapers reported a very serious problem in
Liberia, an African country thousands of refugees are trying to flee.
I would like Canada to provide them with humanitarian assistance
and to welcome a number of these refugees here.
Let me say in conclusion that we will vote against this motion.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of my
colleague's private member's motion to get rid of the Immigration
and Refugee Board. I support him 100 per cent.
I have heard from former members as well as those who are
presently sitting on the IRB. They are very concerned about the
attitude, the prevailing culture as they call it, within the
Immigration and Refugee Board. There are individuals who feel
that the prevailing attitude or culture of the board is very biased,
one sided and certainly is not balanced. They are very concerned
because they see this attitude as being one of supporting the
advocacy groups and the refugees over and above any
consideration for Canada and for the safety of Canadian society.
This concerns me.
The board is a quasi-judicial body which operates at arm's length
from the government. There does not seem to be any
accountability. I appreciate that somebody has to be there to be
concerned about the refugee and immigration applicants who
appear before the board, however I feel there are other options.
There are other options and opportunities within the Canadian
system for their concerns to be addressed. My colleague has given
his concept of what he thinks the alternatives can be.
(1145)
I would suggest that having a government department with
individuals who have the knowledge and training to deal with this
2645
is probably the preferable way of dealing with it because they are
accountable. If it can be shown they are not doing their job or that
there is bias or a lack of consideration for any of the different
parties, they can be held accountable and they can be removed from
their job.
The members of the IRB are not treated in the same way. They
are removed from any accountability. When they make decisions
that are not in Canada's best interests, nothing really can be done.
Making people accountable for their decisions is a very important
consideration.
Another reason departmental representatives are in a better
position or should be allowed that jurisdiction is that decisions
would be done in a timely manner. It is not fair for any applicant to
have to wait four or five years to know whether or not they are
going to be allowed to stay in their country of choice. It is not fair
to the Canadian public nor to the applicants themselves to be held
in the situation of not knowing where they belong.
I have talked to many applicants who have gone through a very
long and drawn out process to try to get some kind of
determination. It is very difficult for them when they have
established roots in a new home in Canada to be told four or five
years later that they cannot stay.
I am concerned with what is happening to the Immigration and
Refugee Board in that its decisions are also bringing disrepute to
Canada's whole immigration system. I can cite a number of cases
of where its decisions have been contrary to public opinion and the
opinion of immigration officers. There are decisions where the
immigration officers have appealed the IRB decision because they
felt so strongly about it. A number of them have happened within
the last year or two.
One that strikes me as being totally uncalled for is a decision for
Jhatoo to remain in our country. Jhatoo has a fairly lengthy
criminal history and ended up once again committing a serious
crime. He beat to death with a baseball bat a mother of six children.
He did it for money. The IRB determined that he could be
rehabilitated even though he had a long criminal history and he had
murdered a mother of six children. He was put out on parole. The
decision was made that while he was on parole he could remain in
Canada on the condition that he not associate with other criminals.
When the IRB decision came down his parole had already been
revoked and he was in jail associating with criminals. This did not
seem to concern the IRB.
There is another case of an applicant who had been ordered
deported, whose deportation order had been stayed by the IRB and
then had been appealed and overturned. Although that individual
had a charge of manslaughter, a charge for a sexual offence against
a 13 year old, and charges of aggravated assault, he was allowed to
stay in Canada. As a result there is one woman who is dead and a 13
year old girl who was shot and badly wounded before he committed
suicide. There is a price to pay for decisions such as these.
When somebody thinks that the department officials have not
given a good decision or that their deportation order is unjustified,
there are the courts of the land to deal with those cases. There is
nothing that denies them the ability to appear before the courts in
those cases.
(1150 )
We have made it so easy for individuals to stretch the process, to
stretch the courtesy and the kindness of our country to the point
where our acceptance rate is nigh on 75 per cent. Although as a
country we are compassionate and we want to open our doors, it is
a question of making sure that those most in need, the genuine
refugees who are in camps and do not have the means to relocate in
another country, are the people we look after, not those individuals
who have the financial resources to reach the North American
continent and to make their claim from here.
Some comments have been brought to my attention from the
Rwandan community here in Canada, the Tamil community here in
Canada, the Hong Kong community here in Canada, and the Sikh
community here in Canada. They are concerned about the decisions
which are being made by the IRB. They are concerned about the
representation in the IRB hearings which they see as very one sided
and very biased. They ask: ``How is it possible that this is
happening? We are the victims. We are being victimized in Canada
by the people the IRB is allowing to come in. Why is somebody not
protecting us in Canada from that which we left in our home
countries?'' I cannot answer them because I do not know why we
are allowing that to happen.
The situation we find ourselves in was brought to my attention
by somebody within the community. This person is concerned that
in 1994 there were 68 Chileans who made claims to the board in
Montreal. In February 1995 Canada removed the visitor's visa
regulation for Chileans. In 1995 Montreal had 1,483 applicants for
refugee status. That is a jump from 68 claimants to 1,483 claimants
in one year.
One has to ask why this happens. Is it for legitimate reasons or is
it because Canada has a reputation for having such a weak, soft
system that it makes it easy for people to take advantage of us? In
the interests of Canadians, in the interests of the integrity of our
immigration system it is very important that Canada start looking
at organizations and boards like the IRB to determine whether they
have been successful in maintaining the status and the stature of
Canada in the international community. If they have not, then this
country should be looking for other alternatives. I would suggest
that now is not soon enough.
2646
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to characterize
a system as being biased against the safety of Canadians is not
only not fair, but it is not just.
Over 50 years this country has opened its doors to thousands and
thousands of refugees. This is something I am sure everyone is
proud of. There are individuals in this House right now who know
firsthand the hardships and perils refugee claimants have to face,
the persecution, the sorrow and the fear.
For the rest of us it may sometimes be difficult to understand or
comprehend the refugee experience. People in Canada do not have
to worry about soldiers coming to their doors in the middle of the
night to take them or their families away. We do not have to worry
about being tortured or killed for our political beliefs. We do not
have to worry about suddenly losing our homes and possessions
because of war. We must never forget that many others do.
There are places in the world where speaking one's mind can get
one thrown into a cell without a trial or a sentence, or worse. We
live in a time when terms like ethnic cleansing and genocide have
become part of the daily vernacular. I am proud to say that in
Canada we have chosen to confront these issues head on. It has
long been recognized both here and abroad that Canadians care and
we take our responsibilities as good citizens of the world very
seriously.
(1155)
That is why we accept the international obligations we took on
when we signed the 1951 Geneva convention relating to the status
of refugees and the 1967 protocol. By signing those agreements we
promised to protect those in need, to open our arms and hearts to
victims of oppression and misery.
A key element of the strategy to deal with refugees was the
creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board in 1989. The IRB,
on behalf of Canadians, reflects our commitment to promote a
peaceful and humanitarian response to global issues of conflict,
mass migration and human rights. The board's goals and
challenges have remained constant: to identify those in need of
Canada's protection and to adjudicate fairly and efficiently all
immigration appeals, inquiries and detention reviews.
There have been times when the IRB has met all of these goals
and challenges. However, we have had problems. There have been
times when the IRB's judgment has been questioned. There have
been times when the integrity of the system has been placed in
doubt. However this does not mean we should scrap the whole
thing. This type of haphazard tearing down is inefficient and
uncalled for. Characterizing the system by using a few criminal
sensationalistic cases is irresponsible.
In 1985 the supreme court ruled that refugee claimants are
entitled to a hearing on the merits of their claim in accordance with
the charter right to fundamental justice. In the Singh case the court
pointed out that fundamental justice required that the claimants had
a right to an oral hearing before the decision maker where
questions of credibility were at stake. The opportunity to be heard
is only one element of fundamental justice. The decision maker
must also be unbiased and impartial. There is a requirement not
only for justice to be done but for justice to be seen to be done.
We have a board of professionals who are well trained to deal
with the intricacies and complexities of refugee cases. Refugee
status determination has been described as one of the most difficult
forms of adjudication. It is emotionally demanding and requires a
commitment to justice and fairness. Board members are chosen
because they have the qualities deemed necessary to carry out this
important and often heart rending work. They bring with them
different perspectives and knowledge of the international
community.
The board's record of success far outweighs the few instances of
problems. Last year alone the board heard over 20,000 claims.
Unfortunately when dealing with that many people inevitably a few
people may slip through the cracks. A criminal few have cast some
serious aspersions on a good system. That is why the government
recently took action to protect the integrity of our system. I am
talking about the passage of Bill C-44 which hon. members
opposite know well.
Bill C-44 is an enforcement tool which is tough on serious
criminals who would abuse our nation's goodwill and hospitality. It
stops serious dangerous criminals from claiming refugee status
simply to delay their removal from Canada. It also allows our
government to stop a refugee hearing after the hearing has begun if
it suddenly receives new information about a claimant's criminal
dealings.
Before the passage of Bill C-44, we would not stop the process
once it started. Likewise, Bill C-44 takes away the right of serious
criminals to appeal removal orders to the immigration appeal
division of the IRB. The withdrawal of appeal rights will only
occur in the most serious cases involving real danger to the public.
We have done a great deal to address the concerns that hon.
members across the way are talking about. Perhaps it should be
noted right now that improvements to the board are not always
legislated in the House. In order to maintain its relevance and
efficiency, the board continually assesses its performance and
examines ways to improve. The IRB has willingly undertaken an
ongoing process of critical self-examination of policies, practices
and procedures.
In recent years the board itself has concentrated on developing
and identifying best practices. Another example of this positive
development was the introduction of guidelines in examining
2647
claims from women refugees fearing gender related persecution.
Canada was the first country in the world to undertake such an
initiative. This reinforces our image as a world leader in upholding
the rights of women.
It is a system which is continually evolving and developing. It is
a system which builds on its successes and learns from its mistakes.
Countries such as the U.S., which has been admonished by the UN
a number of times for its lack of sensitivity and understanding in its
dealings with refugees, are not the kinds of countries I would like
to compare Canada with.
We have a system in place which is at arm's length from the
government, is professional and is doing a good job. We need to
improve it, but scrapping it is like sticking our heads in the sand.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could call it 12.03 p.m. rather
than having someone speak for three minutes.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2647
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 10, 1996 consideration of Bill
C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 63.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-12, in Clause 63, be amended by
(a) replacing line 19, on page 60, with the following:
``63.(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Commission may, with the approv-'';
and
(b) adding the following after line 34 on page 60:
``(2) Where the government of a province notifies the Commission in writing
that it wishes to enter into an agreement to provide for the annual payment by
the Commission of contributions equivalent to all costs and expenses relating to
the employment benefits and support measures that are to be made each year by
the Commission in the province, the Commission shall enter into such an
agreement forthwith.''
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
getting near the end of this stage which unfortunately, just as all
other stages of consideration of this bill, has been cut short by the
government. First of all, this bill did not follow the normal
procedure since it was referred to committee before second
reading, where the official opposition usally has the opportunity to
talk about the principles of a bill. And now, at report stage in the
House, the government has once again decided to limit debate.
I think the government does not want to give us the opportunity
to tell the truth about this reform in the House of Commons
because it is afraid that, if people learn the truth, there will be even
more pressure on the government.
After all these demonstrations in areas where there had not been
any in a long time, we had further proof of the people's
dissatisfaction in the 40,000 cards Quebecers sent to the Leader of
the Official Opposition so he could give them to the Minister of
Human Resources Development, who was not there to receive
them. But the cards are there.
If people are so much opposed to this bill, it is because it changes
dramatically the conditions of the unemployment insurance
program, which is the only protection available to ordinary people,
to those who are not rich, to those who do not have lifetime job
security, and that includes a lot of people.
The only people who will be less affected by this bill are those
who already have a steady job, who already work 35 hours a week
or more. But even these people will be affected by the level of
maximum benefits and by the reduction of the benefit period to 45
weeks. Even they will be affected, because their sons, wives,
friends, and people from their areas will be affected, because
economically, as well as socially, this bill is a bad bill.
I would say it is a bad bill for Canada as well. And you might
look at me and consider it ironic, coming from a member of the
Bloc Quebecois. Yes, Mr. Speaker, but on this issue, as on so many
others, the official opposition has fulfilled its function because,
when we are here, we are defending not just Quebec's interests in
this Parliament, but also the interests of Quebecers, which are just
as affected as Canadians in Atlantic Canada or anywhere else in
Canada by this UI reform.
(1205)
This reform has an impact on the economy and on Canada. Why?
Because since the beginning, UI was, in my view, a form of transfer
from the richer regions, those where work is the most plentiful, to
the poorer regions, where it is harder to find a decent-paying job.
But the purpose of this bill, and it is there for anyone who reads
the documents put out by the department, is to reduce equalization
payments. People in the regions quite rightly protested. They were
being targeted. But they are not the only ones targeted, far from it.
In addition to tightening up eligibility requirements, as was
mentioned, in addition to reducing benefits, in addition to slashing
the level of benefits for those without stable jobs, this bill has the
2648
detestable feature of increasing the arbitrary and discretionary
power of the commission, which has dwindled to a shadow of its
former self, because, to all intents and purposes, the department
takes over what used to be the commission's role. Employees are
now employees of the department. So, there is more arbitrary
power, and definitely more punitive measures.
As proof, I offer the amendments presented by the government,
because it was the only one able to present any, on all the
provisions involving expenditures and revenues. These
amendments solve very few problems for very few people and, in
themselves, will not offset the department's intended cuts. Those
cuts will be replaced with additional sanctions.
It is important to note that there is a very low level of
unemployment insurance fraud, based on what we know about the
incidence of fraud in various public programs. It is important to
point out that, of the nearly $14 billion paid out in benefits, cases
involving fraud accounted for $94 million this past year, or far less
than 1 per cent. The number of individuals found guilty of fraud is
also far lower than that figure.
I have heard from so many lawyers working with people who
have been having horrendous problems with UI. Moreover,
numerous rulings by both the umpire and the federal appeal court
have repeatedly shown that people are very much at a disadvantage
when it comes to unemployment insurance. If they do win their
case, all that they obtain as a judgment is that the commission will
review its decision, so many people do not even protest, because
they cannot afford to.
(1210)
Something we fear will happen, and it will if the government
continues along this path, is that there will be more work done
under the table, more arrangements between employers and
employees to get around this legislation.
The government still has time, there is no urgency. The purpose
of our proposed amendment is to encourage the government to take
the necessary time for proper consultations aimed at true reform.
There is no rush to precipitate regions into very high
unemployment levels, no rush to hurl those with no security except
unemployment insurance into far greater poverty.
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of
the employment insurance legislation before the House.
The bill is key to our government's commitment to the reform of
the social security system. As Secretary of State for the Status of
Women and as a B.C. MP, I am pleased to say fairness and
inclusiveness are hallmarks of the bill. It retools the outdated
Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 for our times.
In the 1990s structural unemployment created a new problem
that the old UI system had not been designed to address. Through
no fault of their own, workers were being laid off and found it
difficult to get permanent work. There are many reasons for this,
not the least of which is the advent of a new era of technological
and information based industries.
The end result was that UI, which was meant to assist workers
through temporary short term job displacement, was ill equipped to
respond to the frequent recurrent, and in some cases permanent, job
loss characteristic of structural unemployment.
The only way to deal with structural unemployment, as the rest
of the industrial world is beginning to find out, is to become
relevant to the new industrial reality. To do this means retraining
and providing workers with the tools and skills for the new world
of work. Canadians want to work, to be independent economically
and to provide the infrastructure for Canada's competitiveness in
the global economy.
This bill creates a new and modern employment insurance
system for Canadians who agree we need to realign our social
programs and who want these changes made with fairness and with
flexibility, with a human face.
Canadians have had a direct hand in shaping this reform and the
result is an insurance plan that focuses on employment, training
and entrepreneurship, not unemployment. This new system will
help more Canadians prepare for, find and keep work in the new
economy, and goes so far as to create jobs.
One of the most significant features of this reform is that while
96 per cent of current UI recipients will still be eligible, 500,000
new claimants will be able to receive benefits, a majority of whom
are women and youth.
The new bill also recognizes the regional diversity of the
country. For the first time, fewer hours will be required to qualify
in high unemployment areas such as northern B.C. and the
maritimes. The bill recognizes for the first time the inherent
differences in the work patterns of men and women and seeks to
remedy them.
The evolution of women's aspiration for equality has created a
different dynamic in the workforce. Today women make up 45 per
cent of the paid workforce.
[Translation]
Women have become such a force in the labour market in the
past 25 years that addressing issues of interest to women means
addressing the numerous characteristics of the new economy,
issues such as nontraditional work, conflicts between job and
family responsibilities, and various models for entering the work
force.
2649
Women tend to work fewer hours than men and to earn less.
They are more likely to be in nontraditional jobs.
[English]
The new EI recognizes the different realities of women and men
because it is the first major federal initiative designed with the
benefit of formal gender analysis. I point out how this has been
reflected in Bill C-12.
One of the major strengths of this legislation is the move from
weeks of work to hours of work as the basis of the plan. In today's
fluid job market the week is no longer the best measure of labour
force participation. The hour is a more accurate measure of work
effort since it will acknowledge the efforts of all part time workers
who put in under 15 hours of work a week, often doing so in more
than one job, and who were not allowed to participate in the
benefits other workers enjoyed. Now premiums are paid from the
first hour worked. Every hour counts toward a claim.
For the first time women may be able to qualify for maternity,
parental and other special benefits they were previously ineligible
for. Almost 70 per cent of part time workers are women. This
change means 500,000 more Canadians will have their work
insured for the first time. Concerns have been raised that if women
in this position cannot get more hours of work they will lose their
claim to maternity or parental benefits.
(1215)
Gender based analysis showed that at most 2 per cent of current
maternity claimants would need to work longer to qualify for these
special benefits but that they will get them. Also, now that every
hour counts, employers will have less reason to limit the hours of
their part time workers as they did in the past. Many Canadians
who hold down multiple jobs will be eligible for EI for the very
first time.
Another group of workers who will benefit under the new system
are seasonal workers, 38 per cent of whom comprise the B.C.
workforce. These people working in logging, mining, fisheries,
tourism and construction. They often have a gap in the off season
which breaks up their continuous weeks of work criteria. Now, not
only will they carry over for up to a 26 week gap, but the hour
system will increase their eligibility by recognizing the intensity of
their work over the on season.
Bill C-12 will help low income Canadians. Some 350,000
Canadians with family incomes of less than $26,000 a year will be
eligible for the family income supplement. Two-thirds of these are
women who will receive a top up for up to 13 per cent of their
benefit. They will be able to keep a foot in the job market door by
supplementing their benefits by $50 or 25 per cent of their weekly
benefits, whichever is higher.
About 1.3 million low income Canadians will now have their EI
premiums refunded, including almost 700,000 women and about
300,000 youth.
The new EI plan is a pro-employment plan where benefits will
be balanced by five active employment initiatives designed to help
unemployed Canadians find their place in the labour force. Wage
subsidies will give employers an incentive to hire people in
targeted groups who face barriers to employment. Many of these
beneficiaries will be women and youth.
An innovative new benefit, targeted earning supplements, will
top up the income of eligible claimants who take a low earning job.
Self-employment assistance has already helped more than
34,000 Canadians to start their own businesses. This is especially
exciting for women who now make up one in every three
entrepreneurs. Skills, loans and grants support individual initiative
and commitment.
Access to these benefits has been broadened to include more
Canadians. Anyone who received insurance benefits in the
previous three years and anyone who has claimed maternity,
parental or adoptive benefits in the past five years, will now be
included.
[Translation]
This new system is both economically and socially responsible.
It is proactive and balanced.
[English]
It will bridge the difficult transition in a world that is moving out
of one industrial era into another, where the status quo no longer
works, where a plan designed to meet the needs of a boom
generation has become irrelevant.
Change is always difficult at best. How to change in ways that
moves us forward competitively into the new world reality is what
the EI bill proposes. It reinforces the value of work and our belief
as Canadians that we can create prosperity and security in the new
millennium. I urge the House to pass this bill and to help Canada
accept the challenges and benefits that the 21st century offers.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to intervene once again on Bill C-12. I do not understand
how the secretary of state can boast that this is a bill for women. I
do not believe it for a minute.
I do not know whether the secretary of state heard or read the
same news as us, but it is a fact that no more than two weeks ago a
press conference was held here by a number of women's groups.
They included NAC, the Fédération des femmes du Québec and a
number of other groups that criticized this bill, because it is bad for
women.
2650
Why is it bad for women? Because it will penalize part time
women workers, and not only women but young people. The
secretary of state for the status of women said that 77 per cent
of women worked in part time jobs. How is it she is alone in
saying so-because she represents the Liberal government, which
supports the bill-when women are criticizing this bill, which will
penalize part time workers?
(1220)
The government is boasting that UI benefits are counted and paid
as of the first hour worked, but these women, who work less than
15 hours, will not qualify, as we know very well. A lot of women
work part time and less than 15 hours a week. What is going to
happen? These women will not qualify for unemployment
insurance benefits.
I am not the only one saying so, and my colleagues in the Bloc
are not the only ones saying so. Women's groups in Canada and in
Quebec, and not just Quebec, are saying so. It is not simply for
partisan reasons we are speaking to this issue, a lot of people
outside the Bloc have criticized it.
I do not know whether the secretary of state watched the news on
the weekend, but as late as yesterday, on Mother's Day, a press
conference was held in Montreal where unions and Françoise
David, representing the Fédération des femmes du Québec,
criticized this bill on behalf of women because it is no good.
I very much regretted the absence of the Advisory Council on the
Status of Women. It could have taken the government to task and
could have expressed its opinion on this unfortunate bill, which
hurts women. The government deplores poverty among women,
but what is it doing with this bill? It is going to increase poverty
among women, because women will not be able to qualify.
Also, the secretary of state is boasting that it will be a good piece
of legislation for women, and that pregnant women will be entitled
to more UI benefits. I wonder how the government intends to help
women when, in the case of pregnant women, they will need 716
hours of work to qualify for UI benefits.
A number of people will be affected by this bill, especially
seasonal workers. I assume women too have seasonal jobs. For
instance, women in the tourism sector, or fisheries; this is seasonal
work. Will these women be penalized because they do not hold full
time jobs, either by choice or because they have children at home
and cannot work full time? Yes, they are going to be penalized.
I will say it again, I do not understand why this government is
insisting on passing this bill, which will be bad for women. It
should go back to the drawing board and review this bill.
When the Liberals were in the opposition, they criticized certain
aspects of this legislation, they criticized the Conservative Party.
They said it was on the wrong track, and was going to penalize
people. Everything we are saying now was said then by the
Liberals. Why? Because they were in the opposition.
Now they are in power and they do not have the courage to go
ahead with what they criticized in the past. Today, I am criticizing
them for it. I am criticizing the lack of realism on the part of this
government with regard to unemployment.
We all know that times are tough in terms of employment.
People are without a job through no choice of their own. This
weekend, we learned in the news that hotels Le Méridien and
Auberge des Gouverneurs are facing financial difficulties. What
does that mean? It means the employees of those hotels will soon
be unemployed. This is disturbing.
The unemployment insurance fund is going very well; there is a
$5 billion surplus in the fund. Five billion dollars! Instead of
helping these people make it between two jobs, they are reducing
the number of benefit weeks and making criteria more exacting.
The secretary of state for status of women said earlier that the
employment insurance program, which is no longer called the
unemployment insurance program, will not necessarily deal with
unemployment, but instead will give grants so that people can
receive training and return to work.
This is another case of duplication and overlapping, and I regret
this way they have of interfering in areas already under Quebec's
jurisdiction. Instead of sending the money and budgets necessary
for the implementation of a real employment policy in Quebec,
instead of helping workers and facilitating their training, they keep
$5 billion and adopt a piecemeal approach to solve the
unemployment problem which is still prevailing in Quebec and in
Canada.
(1225)
Several groups testified before us and are shocked to see the
government's lack of compassion for the precarious circumstances
of some people who find themselves on unemployment insurance
through no fault of their own. So, it is no longer an unemployment
insurance.
As I was saying recently in a speech, it is no longer an insurance
that makes sure people will have a minimum of money to provide
for their needs when they lose their job. If 77 per cent of women
work in part time jobs, they will be doubly penalized by this bill.
They will be penalized because they will no longer have a job
and they know very well that these are very precarious jobs. There
is no continuity in part time employment. They will have a hard
time finding another job. This will mean these women, men and
young people will go on welfare. You know, going on welfare is a
vicious circle. What does it mean for these people? It means
moving further away from the possibility of finding another job.
2651
When the government was in opposition, it was against
discriminatory measures targeting the unemployed. It should
reconsider because it will have to pay the price.
As we have seen, the people of Quebec and of Canada are against
this bill that does not provide unemployment insurance in case of
job loss. The government will penalize people over the number of
benefit weeks and will raise the criteria, so that the unemployed
will no longer receive the assistance they expect.
Yet, these people have paid their premiums. I too am paying
premiums and I hope I will not have to rely on the UI system some
day. But these people have paid so that other people, perhaps even
themselves, can receive UI benefits some day. It is not by
penalizing them, by increasing the hours of work required that the
government will solve the problem.
Moreover, they take the money from the pockets of people who
will never qualify for unemployment insurance because they did
not accumulate the 700 to 910 hours of work per year required to be
eligible for UI benefits.
Meanwhile, as I said before, the government is keeping $5
billion in its own pockets. But that is not all. It is only for this year.
What will happen with next year's surpluses? This government is
responsible for social cohesion. Only the future will reveal the
impact of today's unemployment, and the government will be
responsible.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 76. 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: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Shall we call it 12.30?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report
stage and second reading of the bill now before the House.
Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that all remaining motions be
deemed to have been proposed to the House, recorded divisions on
the motions be deemed to have been requested and deferred. If we
get that consent, Mr. Speaker can then propose to ask for a recorded
division.
[Translation]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-12, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 62,
with the following:
``67.(1) Subject to section 70, a person, other than a full-time student within
the meaning of the Income Tax Act,''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 80
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 67.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
2652
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.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-12, in Clause 78, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page
67 with the following:
``78. The total amount that may be paid out by the Commission under section
61 and pararaph 63(a) and charged''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 78.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour 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.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 112
That Bill C-12, in Clause 96, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 81,
with the following:
``refund to the person, together with interest at the prescribed rate on these
amounts calculated from the day they were paid into the Consolidated
Revenue Fund, the aggregate of all''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour 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.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 113
That Bill C-12, in Clause 96, be amended by replacing lines 45 to 48, on page
81, and lines 1 and 2, on page 82 with the following:
``$2,000-(IE-P)+I
where
P is the aggregate of all deducted amounts mentioned in subsection (4);
IE is the person's insurable earnings in the year; and
I is the interest at the prescribed rate on the deducted amounts calculated from
the day they were paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.''
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
2653
Motion No. 111
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 96.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 128
That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 29, on page 96, the following
new Clause:
``110.1 The Commission shall, no later than thirty days before a pilot project
is tested, cause a notice to be published in the Canada Gazette that contains the
following:
(a) a statement that the Commission is preparing to test a pilot project;
(b) the nature and objectives of the pilot project;
(c) a description of the operation of the pilot project;
(d) a statement of how long the pilot project will last and when testing will
commence;
(e) a statement that a detailed description of the pilot project may be obtained
free of charge, on request by any person, from the Commission at the address set
out in the notice; and
(f) an invitation to all interested persons to make representations before the
Commission respecting the pilot project and the time period for doing so.''
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 188
That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 25, on page 131, the
following new Clause:
``Standardization during transitional period
167.1 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Commission
shall, during the period between January 5, 1997 and January 5, 2002, with the
approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations that, in its opinion, are
required for the purpose of
(a) gradually eliminating the concept of regional rates of unemployment
during this period and dealing with any resulting legal consequences, so that,
by January 5, 2002, a claimant, provided that the claimant otherwise qualifies
for unemployment benefits under this Act, may qualify for unemployment
benefits without regard to a regional rate of unemployment; and
(b) adjusting, during this period, the number of weeks of insurable employment
or the number of hours of insurable employment required for a claimant to
qualify for unemployment benefits, so that, by January 5, 2002,
(i) the number of hours of insurable employment required to qualify for
unemployment benefits will be the same throughout Canada, and
(ii) the standardized qualifying period in paragraph (b)(i) shall apply
without reference to a regional rate of unemployment;
(2) The Governor in Council shall, by order,
(a) after consultation with the Commission, amend any provision in this Act
that is inconsistent with the objectives and transitional duties referred to in
subsection (1); and
(b) no later than January 5, 2002,
(i) establish a standard qualifying period that is valid throughout Canada,
based on the number of hours of insurable employment during a
qualifying period and calculated without reference to a regional rate of
unemployment; and
(ii) amend any provision in this Act that is inconsistent with the standard
qualifying period referred to in subparagraph (i).''
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
2654
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 192
That Bill C-12, in Clause 169, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 21, on
page 132, with the following:
``2) The Minister shall lay a copy of the report of the Auditor General of the
accounts and financial transactions of the Commission relating to employment
insurance and of the state of the Employment Insurance Account before each
House of Parliament on the first sitting day on which that House is sitting after
the day the Minister receives the report.''
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 191
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 169.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 215
That Bill C-12 in Clause 190, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 141 with the following:
``(e) sections 14 to 17;''
(b) by replacing line 13 on page 141 with the following:
``(l) paragraph 108(1)(h);
(1.1) subsection 153.1(3); and''
(c) by replacing lines 31 to 34 on page 141 with the following:
``(5) The provisions enacted by section 6 of Schedule II continue to apply in
place of sections 14, 16 and 17 of this Act to claimants''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House of 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 214
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 190.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House of 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: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 219
2655
That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 153, the following
new Clause:
``17.1 The following applies in place of subsection 153.1(3):
(3) The scheme established by the regulations may not provide special
benefits to persons who
(a) have less than 20 weeks of insurable employment in their qualifying
period; or
(b) are subject to an increase under section 7.1 in the number of hours of
insurable employment required to qualify for benefits.''
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 216
That Bill C-12 be amended in -T clause 6 of Schedule II
(a) by replacing line 26 on page 148 with the following:
``section 14:'';
(b) by replacing line 30 on page 148 with the following:
``(a) 55% of the claimant's average weekly insurable'';
(c) by replacing line 1 on page 149 with the following:
``(i) 60% of the claimant's average weekly insur-'';
(d) by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 149 with the following:
``average weekly insurable earnings and $225, if the claimant's average
weekly insurable earnings'';
(e) by replacing lines 11 to 13 on page 149 with the following:
(2) The average weekly insurable earnings of a major attachment claimant are the
insurable earnings in the last 20 weeks of insurable employment in their qualifying
period divided by 20.
(3) The average weekly insurable earnings of a minor attachment claimant are the
insurable earnings in their qualifying period divided by the larger of the following
divisors:
(a) the divisor that equals the number of weeks on insurable employment in their
qualifying period, and
(b) the divisor determined in accordance with the following table by reference to
the applicable regional rate of unemployment:
TABLE
Regional Rate of Unemployment Divisor
not more than 8% 20
more than 8% but not more than 9% 19
more than 9% but not more than 10% 18
more than 10% but not more than 11% 17
more than 11% but not more than 12% 16
more than 12% but not more than 13% 15
more than 13% 14
(4) The Commission may, with the approval'';
(f) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 149 with the following:
``qualifying period for a period, whether on a weekly basis or otherwise, for
calculating and estab-''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 217
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting clause 7 of Schedule II.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
2656
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 218
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 10 of Schedule II
(a) by replacing lines 29 to 39 on page 150 with the following:
``10. (1) The following applies in place of paragraph 30(1)(a):
(a) the claimant has, since losing or leaving the employment, been employed
in insurable employment for the number of weeks required by section 7 to
qualify for benefits; or
(2) The following applies in place of subsections 30(6) and (7):
(6) Where a claimant who has lost or left an employment as described in
subsection (1) makes an initial claim for benefits, the following weeks of
insurable employment may not be used for the purposes of subsection 7(2) or
(3):
(a) weeks of insurable employment from that or any other employment before
the day on which that employment was lost or left; and
(b) weeks of insurable employment in any employment that the claimant
subsequently loses or leaves, as described in subsection (1).''
(b) by striking out lines 2 to 5 on page 151 and substituting the following:
``any employment that a claimant loses or leaves as described in subsection (1)
may be used for the purposes''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 22.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
2657
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 47.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 51.
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 54.
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 55.
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 56.
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 57.
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 58.
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 59.
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 60.
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 64.
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 65.
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 66.
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 68.
Motion No. 83
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 69.
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 70.
Motion No. 85
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 71.
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 73.
Motion No. 88
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 74.
Motion No. 89
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 75.
Motion No. 90
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 76.
Motion No. 91
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 77.
Motion No. 94
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 79.
Motion No. 95
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 80.
Motion No. 96
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 81.
2658
Motion No. 97
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 82.
Motion No. 98
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 83.
Motion No. 99
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 84.
Motion No. 100
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 85.
Motion No. 101
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 86.
Motion No. 102
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 87.
Motion No. 103
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 88.
Motion No. 104
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 89.
Motion No. 105
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 90.
Motion No. 106
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 91.
Motion No. 107
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 92.
Motion No. 108
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 93.
Motion No. 109
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 94.
Motion No. 110
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 95.
Motion No. 114
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 97.
Motion No. 115
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 98.
Motion No. 116
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 99.
Motion No. 117
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 100.
Motion No. 118
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 101.
Motion No. 119
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 102.
Motion No. 120
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 103.
Motion No. 121
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 104.
Motion No. 122
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 105.
Motion No. 123
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 106.
Motion No. 124
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 107.
Motion No. 125
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 108.
Motion No. 126
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 109.
Motion No. 127
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 110.
Motion No. 129
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 111.
Motion No. 130
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 112.
Motion No. 131
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 113.
Motion No. 132
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 114.
Motion No. 133
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 115.
Motion No. 134
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 116.
Motion No. 135
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 117.
Motion No. 136
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 118.
Motion No. 137
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 119.
Motion No. 138
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 120.
Motion No. 139
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 121.
Motion No. 140
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 122.
Motion No. 141
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 123.
Motion No. 142
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 124.
Motion No. 143
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 125.
Motion No. 144
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 126.
Motion No. 145
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 127.
2659
Motion No. 146
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 128.
Motion No. 147
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 129.
Motion No. 148
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 130.
Motion No. 149
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 131.
Motion No. 150
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 132.
Motion No. 151
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
Motion No. 152
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 134.
Motion No. 153
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 135.
Motion No. 154
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 136.
Motion No. 155
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Motion No. 156
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 138.
Motion No. 157
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 139.
Motion No. 158
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 140.
Motion No. 159
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 141.
Motion No. 160
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 142.
Motion No. 161
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 143.
Motion No. 162
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 144.
Motion No. 163
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 145.
Motion No. 164
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 146.
Motion No. 165
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 147.
Motion No. 166
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 148.
Motion No. 167
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 149.
Motion No. 168
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 150.
Motion No. 169
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 151.
Motion No. 170
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 152.
Motion No. 172
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 153.
Motion No. 174
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 154.
Motion No. 175
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 155.
Motion No. 176
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 156.
Motion No. 177
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 157.
Motion No. 178
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 158.
Motion No. 179
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 159.
Motion No. 180
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 160.
Motion No. 181
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 161.
Motion No. 182
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 162.
Motion No. 183
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 163.
Motion No. 184
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 164.
Motion No. 185
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 165.
Motion No. 186
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 166.
Motion No. 187
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 167.
Motion No. 190
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 168.
Motion No. 193
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 170.
Motion No. 194
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 171.
Motion No. 195
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 172.
Motion No. 196
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 173.
2660
Motion No. 197
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 174.
Motion No. 198
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 175.
Motion No. 199
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 176.
Motion No. 202
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 178.
Motion No. 203
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 179.
Motion No. 204
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 180.
Motion No. 205
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 181.
Motion No. 206
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 182.
Motion No. 207
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 183.
Motion No. 208
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 184.
Motion No. 209
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 185.
Motion No. 210
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 186.
Motion No. 211
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 187.
Motion No. 212
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 188.
Motion No. 213
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 189.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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.
2661
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next 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.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next 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: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 27. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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.
2662
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 31. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 32. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 33. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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.
2663
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 34. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
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 of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
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 of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 39. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 40. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
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 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.
2664
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 42. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
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: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 45. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 46. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 47. 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.
2665
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 48. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
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 of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 50. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
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: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 52. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 53. 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.
2666
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 55. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 56. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 57. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 58. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 59. 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.
2667
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 60. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 61. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 62. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 63. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 64. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 65. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
2668
The next question is on Motion No. 66. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 67. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 68. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 69. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 70. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 71. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 74. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
2669
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 77. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 78. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 79. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 82. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 83. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 84. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
2670
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 85. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 86. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 87. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 88. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 89. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 90. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
2671
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 91. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 94. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 95. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 96. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 97. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 98. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
2672
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 99. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 100. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 101. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 102. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 103. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 104. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
2673
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 105. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 106. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 107. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 108. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 109. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 110. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
2674
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 114. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 115. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 116. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 117. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 118. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 119. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
2675
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 120. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 121. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 122. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 123. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 124. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 125. 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:
2676
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 126. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 127. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 129. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 130. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 131. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 132. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
2677
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 133. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 134. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 135. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 136. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 137. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 138. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2678
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 139. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 140. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 141. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 142. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 143. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 144. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2679
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 145. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 146. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 147. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 148. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 149. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 150. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2680
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 151. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 152. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 153. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 154. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 155. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 156. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2681
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 157. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 158. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 159. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 160. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 161. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 162. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2682
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 163. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 164. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 165. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 166. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 167. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 168. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2683
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 169. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 170. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 172. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 174. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 175. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 176. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2684
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 177. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 178. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 179. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 180. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 181. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 182. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2685
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 183. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 184. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 185. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 186. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 187. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 190. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2686
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 193. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 194. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 195. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 196. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 197. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 198. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2687
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 199. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 202. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 203. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 204. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 205. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 206. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2688
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 207. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 208. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 209. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 210. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 211. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 212. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
2689
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 213. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on
Bill C-12.
Call in the members.
(1250)
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1.
A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the necessity of putting
the question on Motion No. 2. If motion No. 1 is negatived, Motion
No. 2 will be voted on.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 77)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Gouk
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-53
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -103
2690
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fewchuk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Hopkins
Jordan
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mitchell
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Patry
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Serré
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
(1255)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. Therefore I
declare Motion No. 3 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it you
would find unanimous consent to apply the results of report stage
Motion No. 1 to the motion now before the House, as well as report
stage Motions Nos. 4, 5, and 8.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 77.]
The Deputy Speaker: I therefore declare Motions No. 2, 4, 5
and 8 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent for all members who voted on the
previous motion, with the exception of the Minister of National
Defence, to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before
the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will
vote nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no, unless other members wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker, I
vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting in
favour of this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 78)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -104
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
2691
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Gouk
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-52
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fewchuk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Hopkins
Jordan
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mitchell
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Patry
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Serré
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
(1300 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 carried.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just
taken on Motion No. 6 to report stage Motions Nos. 201, 21, 23, 25,
173, 93, 219, 216, 217 and 218.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent for all members who voted on the
previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will
vote yea on this motion, with the addition of the hon. member for
Roberval who has joined us.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will be voting
no on this motion.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker, I
will be voting yes on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 79)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Churchill)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
2692
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Penson
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-126
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fewchuk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Hopkins
Jordan
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mitchell
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Patry
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Serré
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 defeated.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken to
Motions Nos. 10A, 10, 17, 20, 72, 75, 80, 111, 191 and 9.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 79.]
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to record
my vote in favour of Motions Nos. 9 and 17.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare motions Nos. 10A, 10, 17, 20,
72, 75, 80, 111, 191 and 9 lost.
(Motions Nos. 10A, 10, 20, 72, 80, 111, 191 negatived.)
(1305 )
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion. No. 18.
A negative vote on Motion No. 18 requires the question to be put
on Motion No. 17.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent for all members who voted on the
previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will
also vote nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will be voting
yes on this motion.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker, I
will be voting against this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 80)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bridgman
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson -23
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
2693
Godfrey
Godin
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-134
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fewchuk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Hopkins
Jordan
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mitchell
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Patry
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Serré
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 18 defeated.
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 81)
YEAS
Members
Allmand
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-32
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Churchill)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Penson
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speaker
2694
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-125
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fewchuk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Hopkins
Jordan
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mitchell
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Patry
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Serré
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 36. A
negative vote on Motion No. 36 requires the question to be put on
Motion No. 35.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent that all members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will
vote nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will be voting
yes on this motion.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): I will be too,
Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 82)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Churchill)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Penson
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-127
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-30
2695
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fewchuk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Hopkins
Jordan
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mitchell
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Patry
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Serré
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 36 and 35
adopted.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply the same vote to Motion No. 171, and for the
benefit of my colleague, that is listed as item (u) on our informal
list, and Motions Nos. 112 and 128.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker, I
would be in favour of those three motions.
(The House divided on Motion No. 171, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 83)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bridgman
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson -23
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-134
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fewchuk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Hopkins
2696
Jordan
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mitchell
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Patry
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Serré
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 171, 112 and 128
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 73. A negative vote on
Motion No. 73 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 72.
(1310 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if we could just return to Motion No.
36, I am seeking to apply it to other motions. In fact, I withdraw
that. There is seemingly no other application. I am just considering
whether Motion No. 215 is identical. I believe, Mr. Speaker, you
would find unanimous consent to apply the vote on Motion No. 36
to Motion No. 215 which is the first item on the last page of our
informal list.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 82.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 215 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 73.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe the
House would give its unanimous consent that those members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion currently before the House, with Liberal members voting
no on the motion.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will be voting
yes, unless someone wants to vote otherwise.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker, I
will be voting no.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 83.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 73 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 189.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply the results of Motion No. 73 to the motion now
before the House, as well as Motion No. 76 which is the first one on
the next sheet of our informal list.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I want my vote to reflect that of
my party.
(The House divided on Motion No. 189, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 84)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bridgman
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson -23
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
2697
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-135
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fewchuk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Hopkins
Jordan
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mitchell
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Patry
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Serré
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 189 and 76
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 81.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to further apply what I have just requested to Motions Nos.
81, 188 and 192 as well.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 84.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 81, 188 and 192
defeated.
(1315)
[Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in at report
stage.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on concurrence at report stage and
second reading, I believe you would find unanimous consent that
members who have just been recorded as having voted on the
previous motion be now recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea. We would
like to add the presence of the minister of Indian affairs who will be
recorded along with other Liberal members on this motion.
I use this opportunity to thank my colleagues, the whips of other
respective parties, for their kind assistance in accelerating this
process in allowing Parliament to function even better.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be recorded as
voting in favour of this motion. Also, in listening to the different
votes I must have missed something because I wanted to vote in
favour of Motions Nos. 12, 15, 27, 68 and 94.
The Deputy Speaker: Can we by unanimous consent permit the
member to vote as he has indicated?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote no on the last two motions.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party will be
voting no on this last motion.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker, I
will be voting no as well.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 85)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
2698
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -104
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-55
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dumas
Fewchuk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Hopkins
Jordan
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mitchell
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Patry
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Serré
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill concurred in and read the second time.)
* * *
The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade,
be read the third time and passed.
(1320)
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-19, an act regarding the
implementation of the agreement on internal trade.
In my address today I will describe to the House the impact of
trade barriers on the economy and what effect these barriers have
on real Canadians and their families. I will critique the agreement,
its merits, its shortcomings, and I will conclude by pointing out
how this agreement must be changed in order to be of real benefit
to Canadians.
Interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadians jobs and money.
Studies produced by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the
Fraser Institute, the C.D. Howe Institute and others estimate
interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadian businesses between $6
billion and $10 billion a year.
According to information published by the Fraser Institute in its
book Provincial Trade Wars: Why the Blockade Must End, if
Canadian firms were enabled to operate freely across the country,
average Canadian household incomes would rise by as much
$3,500 a year. While conservative estimates place this figure lower,
the point still remains these barriers cost Canadians jobs and
money.
Removing barriers to internal trade is an issue which is so
important to me and the leader of the Reform Party that we have
created a new critic area to address this important issue. We will
fight for Canadians so they can have their jobs and we will fight for
Canadian business so they can deduct their business with the least
government and systemic interference possible. This issue is
second only to debt reduction in terms of issues which must be
2699
dealt with to get Canadians back to work and to stop the 20 years of
fall in workers' take home pay.
What is the magnitude of the internal trade barriers in Canada?
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association estimates there are at
least 500 trade barriers currently between provinces. It is not
known exactly how much larger our internal trade market would be
if goods and services could flow freely back and forth across the
country, but clearly Canadian business would regain a portion of
those markets currently lost to foreign countries and foreign
companies.
I have not found a serious estimate of the number of jobs for
Canadians this would translate into, but it would be tens of
thousands, most likely hundreds of thousands.
A comparison of Canadian international trade and
interprovincial trade in goods and services shows international
trade to be about $160 billion per year and interprovincial trade
about $146 billion a year. This comparison illustrates our
interprovincial trade is only about $14 billion less than our total
international trade.
Why then does the Prime Minister and his government not put
the time and effort into this trade problem they do into international
trade? Travelling the world may see more glamorous but does it
produce jobs? Removing barriers to internal trade certainly will.
According to Stephen Van Houten, president of the Canadian
Manufacturers' Association, provincial trade barriers have resulted
in lost sales, lost investments and lost jobs.
How do these barriers stagnate growth and limit job creation?
One might think these measures are intended to ensure growth and
prosperity within a province. That is the intent, but the opposite is
what happens. While these artificial perimeters protect the
microcosm from outside competition, they are shifting the growth
of domestic industry and establishing protective markets which
lead to higher consumer costs. According to the Consumers
Association of Canada, some provinces pay up to 10 per cent more
for local products because of internal trade barriers.
Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, describes the current trade in goods and
services: ``A totally uncompetitive situation which means
consumers pay more or pay through the nose. People are forced to
pay what bloated utilities like Ontario Hydro choose to charge
rather than what is the best price in the domestic market''.
(1325)
I believe I have established that interprovincial trade barriers are
costing Canadians jobs and money. What do the Liberals have to
say about this issue? The answer is quite a bit. The problem is that
so far talk has led to little action. The Liberal government has
repeatedly recognized that barriers to internal trade cost Canadians
jobs and money, but it has not done anything substantial to rectify
the problem.
The government made promises in the red book on this issue,
promises in both throne speeches on the issue, and recognized the
harm of internal trade barriers in the finance committee's
prebudget consultation report, but to date little has been done.
I remind the Liberal government of some of its own words in
relation to internal trade. Page 22 of the infamous red book, the
book of broken promises, states: ``A Liberal government will be
committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers
within Canada and will address this issue urgently''.
Neville Nankivell writes in his Financial Post article on
February 18: ``The legislation on freer domestic trade was
supposed to have high priority for the Liberal government's
economic policy. It had cleared the committee stage and was
backed with some amendments, but passage was sidetracked in
December by the need to push through the Prime Minister's
controversial unity package''.
It is obvious the government is more concerned with
perpetuating Quebec appeasement than it is about improving
economic conditions for all Canadians, including Quebecers,
Quebecers who are looking for jobs.
In the throne speech of 1994 the Liberals promised to reduce
overlap and duplication between provinces and the federal
government and to work with the provinces to eliminate internal
trade barriers.
Before the federal government brought down the budget this
year, the finance committee urged the government to take action on
interprovincial trade barriers in its prebudget consultation report.
The committee report described the current interprovincial trade
situation in Canada as very much balkanized.
The report went on to state that in some cases it easier to do
businesses in other provinces by going through a U.S. corporation
that can use the provisions of the North American Free Trade
Agreement than by doing business directly.
Within the same report the committee urged government to
continue to seek further action with provinces on reducing
interprovincial trade barriers: ``Trade within Canada must be
placed on an equal footing with Canada-U.S. trade in terms of the
free flow of goods and services. We can no longer afford the
extravagance of favouring foreign competition over trade among
Canadians and discriminating against fellow Canadians''.
It is shameful that our governments, both federal and provincial,
have forced Canadian companies to fight an uphill battle against
2700
their foreign counterparts. We should be ensuring more than just
an equal footing with the United States and other countries.
If barriers to interprovincial trade were eliminated we would be
doing more than placing Canadian companies on an equal footing
internationally. We would be giving them the competitive
advantage they want and deserve. Unfortunately neither the federal
nor the provincial governments seem prepared to work with
Canadians to reduce trade barriers.
The agreement on internal trade is the product of executive
decision making. Twelve cabinet ministers from the respective
provinces and territories along with the federal Minister of Industry
hammered out a deal they could all live with, but what about
business?
The Canada West Foundation released a paper in June, 1994
entitled ``Internal Trade and Economic Co-operation: Down to the
Wire on an Internal Trade Agreement''. This paper addresses
provincial interests and attitudes prior to the agreement
negotiations.
(1330 )
Before the agreement was put in place, the Saskatchewan
government stated: ``Despite certain irritants, most interprovincial
trade moves freely now. Canada's economic union works well for
the most part. Our real economic problems in Canada do not come
from the current structure of our internal market''.
This statement clearly contradicts the concerns of independent
Saskatchewan business which was surveyed by the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business and published in its June 1994
paper entitled ``Barriers to Growth''.
In Saskatchewan, 93 per cent of respondents were in favour of
the removal of trade barriers. Of the respondents who were affected
by trade barriers, over 60 per cent were affected negatively, the key
problem areas being provincial regulations and federal subsidies.
Both resulted in higher costs and restricted growth. How can the
business community feel assured that its interests are being
addressed when there is such a lack of understanding by provincial
governments?
What should the government do to bring down the barriers to
trade and rectify the situation that Canadians currently face? It
could start by acknowledging that previous Liberal and
Conservative governments had an obligation to all Canadians
under the British North America Act to ensure that trade barriers
were never established in the first place.
The British North America Act, 1867 clearly states under section
121 that all articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one
of the provinces shall, from and after the union be admitted free
into each of the provinces. Section 91(2) states that the legislative
authority of Parliament extends to the regulation of trade and
commerce. The people of Canada have paid a serious price for
government inaction and the abdication of responsibility in this
area.
I will take some time now to speak about certain parts of the
internal agreement on trade that this bill implements. The
agreement on internal trade is designed in principle to break down
barriers in order to establish internal free trade. In an attempt to be
all things to all provinces, impediments to this objective have been
erected. One such impediment is article 404 regarding legitimate
objectives.
A legitimate objective is an exemption from the agreement
regarding (a) public security and safety; (b), public order; (c)
protection of human, animal or plant life or health; (d) protection
of the environment; (e) consumer protection; (f) protection of
health, safety and well-being of workers; and (g) affirmative action
programs for disadvantaged groups.
What does it mean? It means that any province can use the above
stated criteria as a means of establishing the protection of its
domestic sectors from competition where it can be demonstrated
that (a) the purpose of the measure is to achieve a legitimate
objective; (b) the measure does not operate to impair unduly access
to persons, goods, services or investment of a party that meet the
legitimate objectives; (c) the measure is not more trade restrictive
than necessary to achieve that legitimate objective; and (d) the
measure does not create a disguised reduction on trade.
When that is put together and one thinks about the legitimate
objectives that are allowed, one can clearly see that provincial
governments can protect pretty well whatever they want under this
legislation. For all intents and purposes, these provisions can be
used in nearly every sector involved in interprovincial trade. How
is this going to break down barriers? The answer is that it will not.
It reminds me of the Ukrainian matrioska dolls. Every time one
is opened, there is another one. It is a very frustrating process
getting to the prize.
At a recent round table discussion hosted by the Certified
General Accountants of Canada, I asked senior government
officials involved in this agreement if they could identify a trade
barrier that could not be considered a legitimate objective. They
were unable to identify a clear example of a trade barrier that could
not be at least considered as a legitimate objective. This spells out
to me that there are very few instances where establishing a
legitimate objective exemption is not possible.
(1335 )
It is obvious from the ample access to exemptions that disputes
between parties are bound to arise. Included in each sector is a
series of procedures intended to resolve disputes between the
parties, except in the following sectors: energy, agriculture and the
``MASH'' sector, which is made up of municipalities, academic
2701
institutions, schools and hospitals. These areas of exclusion are
another story for another time.
When a dispute arises, the parties are to enter into consultations
in order to attempt to rectify the problem. If that is not successful,
then the parties apply for a request for consultations between
governments. At this level any party who has a vested interest in
the outcome of the consultations is able to participate.
If that procedure is unsuccessful, then the issue is brought to the
committee. That body is comprised of ministers from the 13
signing governments that were responsible for drawing up this
agreement. If the procedure is unsuccessful, then the parties may
submit a written request for a panel of experts to preside over their
dispute. The panel is comprised of five individuals chosen from a
roster of 65 experts: that is, five appointed panellists from each
government body. From this roster each party shall select two
panellists who shall, in turn, elect the chair.
Will this dispute settlement mechanism work? We do not know.
According to Stephen Van Houten, president of the Canadian
Manufacturers' Association, the agreement on internal trade is
highly bureaucratic. There is no binding enforcement measure.
There is little chance of a successful outcome for aggrieved
businesses. There are no awards for damages. There is no right of
action without the consent of the attorney general. Decisions to
withhold consent need to be explained or reviewed. In short, there
is no effective dispute settlement mechanism.
The dispute settlement mechanism consists of two avenues of
recourse: a government to government resolution process and the
individual to government process. The second process is a positive
addition which needs to be enhanced in order to heighten the access
of individuals to the panel.
Currently individuals are required to be represented by their
respective party. This constitutes either a provincial government or
the federal government, depending on the jurisdiction in question.
The individual must be able to convince that government to take up
the cause for them. It seems to me that most Canadians do not feel
comfortable in relying on a government bureaucracy to go to bat
for them.
To summarize the dispute settlement mechanism, the emphasis
of this form of settlement is on consultation and mediation between
governments. If this consultation fails, the disputing parties are to
resort to an ad hoc panel of appointed experts. There is no binding
enforcement of the process through the awarding of damages, an
injunction or some other form of penalty. The mechanism does,
however, provide for private parties to launch a complaint against
governments and for public consumption of panel proceedings.
The decisions of these panels are not binding. They serve as
recommendations. The only means of enforcement available under
the agreement is through public humiliation and public pressure. If
the party refuses to comply with the panel recommendation their
non-compliance is made public by the internal trade secretariat.
This remains on the committee agenda for the period of one year. If
at the end of that year the party has yet to comply, retaliatory action
may be pursued.
Will this dispute settlement mechanism process work? I say that
we should give it a chance. We should give it a try. However, it
seems highly unlikely because retaliation will often cost less than
the actions in question.
For the reasons I have addressed today and for the many others
which I do not have time to address, I cannot support Bill C-19.
The bill implements the agreement on internal trade which is
flawed and incomplete. The government says it will fix the
legislation in the future. The lack of action is costing Canadians
now. The government often preaches that it is interested in
Canadians having jobs, yet it refuses to act quickly to fix a problem
which can be fixed if the proper commitment is there.
(1340 )
This agreement does not fulfil the need. It serves as an ideal or a
goal which may some day be attained. The energy, the MASH, and
agriculture sectors of the agreement have yet to be dealt with at all.
The list of provincial exemptions is growing by leaps and bounds.
The 13 governments need to get together again to construct an
agreement which eliminates unreasonable protections for each of
the governments' special interests.
I have described to the House the important role internal trade
plays in the lives of Canadians. I have described a few of the
shortcomings of this agreement: its lack of enforceability,
credibility and accessibility. I have explained how to bring about
change to make the agreement effective and accountable.
The agreement falls short of its objective. We have been
encouraged to support the bill as a step in the right direction. We
have been promised that the best is yet to come. This may be true.
For the sake of Canadian jobs and business, I hope that it is.
Unfortunately, the Liberal government has fallen short on its
promises before. The fact that it has missed numerous deadlines set
out in this agreement speaks for itself.
I want internal trade barriers removed. Canadian business wants
internal trade barriers removed. Canadians looking for jobs want
these barriers removed. This government and provincial
governments say that they want internal trade barriers removed.
Therefore, I say to the Liberal government: Do it and do it now.
2702
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I join my colleagues today in speaking to
Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade in
Canada.
I am proud to participate in this debate, as this is a very
important legislation, however arid and technical it may be. The
bill affirms the principle, with which we agree, that internal trade
should be liberalized as much as possible and that any kind of tariff
barrier that exists should be removed as much as possible.
I must say that it was about time that Canada, as a political and
economical entity, and that Canadians come to an agreement
because it was becoming increasing obvious that Canada was
getting along better with its neighbours than with its own
provinces. Canada successfully negotiated a free trade agreement
with the U.S. and, later, NAFTA, while it was having a great deal of
trouble coming to an agreement on interprovincial tariff barriers.
We agree with the principle of the bill. Especially since, as you
probably recall, there was a huge irritant in that clause 9 used to
give the federal government enormous powers that it had more or
less assumed. Without consulting anybody, at a meeting held in
western Canada, the federal government announced its intention to
make all legitimate efforts to persuade a province whose attitude is
deemed less co-operative than that of another.
At the time, under clause 9, the government had given itself
sweeping, excessive, disproportionate powers. As you probably
recall, this prompted the then premier of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau,
to describe this clause in particular and the bill as a whole, since it
all hinged on clause 9, as ``trade war measures taken by Canada
against Quebec's government in particular''.
(1345)
Mr. Paillé, the then Quebec Minister of Industry, Commerce and
Technology, made the appropriate representations to his federal
counterpart, asking him to exercise moderation and see to it that
clause 9 and federal powers in this area be cut down to reasonable
proportions instead of being so ridiculously excessive. If I am not
mistaken, that is how the Quebec minister described the attitude of
the federal government, which was taking advantage of the
situation to increase its powers.
As for us, we condemned as strongly as possible, both in the
industry committee-of which I was then vice-chairman-and here
in this House, the federal government's tendency to give itself
inordinate powers. I do not want to brag but we succeeded at the
time in talking some sense into the government and making it
understand that the extent and ambiguous nature of the powers it
was giving itself did not meet a real need and were out of line with
what Canadians then expected in this matter.
We now have a clause 9 in which federal powers are more
restricted, more reasonable, and in which all the parties, including
the Quebec government, agree that an arbitrator is indeed needed in
this area, thus giving the federal government some legitimate,
consistent powers.
Even if we agree with the bill in its present form, there are still
two provisions that we are deploring but which have been
maintained despite the representations made and the amendments
put forward by the official opposition.
The first of the two provisions we deplore is, again, clause 9,
which provides that ``pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,
the Governor in Council-that is to say, the cabinet-may, by
order'' and so on. This means that, in any tense situation or dispute
between any two parties in Canada, the cabinet gives itself the right
to settle the matter by issuing a direct order without going through
the House. On the sly.
We would have liked-we even moved an amendment to this
end, but it was unfortunately rejected by the government-the
representatives of the 10 provinces and 2 territories in Canada that
signed the agreement who sit in the House of Commons to be able
to participate in the debate, either on behalf of the defendant or on
behalf of the plaintiff, to publicly present the arguments of each
party in the public interest and for historical purposes so that, at the
end of the day, there is a debate before the federal government can
come down with a sledgehammer or with sanctions, as it is now
entitled to do.
We would have liked a debate to be held so that the elected
representatives of the two parties involved-let us imagine, for
example, that there is a dispute between Alberta and British
Columbia-who sit in the House of Commons at the same time can
participate in the debate and perhaps have some influence or
ultimately put forward proposals. The dispute could then be settled
in the best way possible and not by order, not on the sly, not in an
arbitrary manner, as suggested by the current formula favoured by
the government in this very important matter.
(1350)
It must be understood that we are talking about a recourse
against an injuring party. Traditionally, there has been a manpower
mobility problem here, at the Quebec-Ottawa border, since workers
from one side of the river could not work on the other side, and vice
versa. These are sensitive issues.
The more discussions there are, the greater the chances of
finding the most appropriate solution. Resorting to orders in
council and acting on the sly or arbitrarily will certainly not
improve the chances of finding the fairest possible solution.
2703
We generally support the bill, but we are also disappointed with
clause 19, the wording of which is very expeditious. It reads as
follows:
19. Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 is repealed.
This may be a short sentence, but it has enormous consequences
for a group of Quebec workers who made a lot of representations.
These workers appeared before the industry committee to give their
point of view. They also contacted the offices of the transport and
industry ministers. Unfortunately, their efforts were in vain. I am
referring to Quebec's bulk hauling truckers.
After a long struggle, they managed to get a law finally passed in
Quebec to regulate bulk transport. The province did a good job and
things have been going smoothly in that industry for many years
now. This is quite an improvement given the heated confrontations
that took place before, including in the streets of Quebec City at
one time, to develop public awareness regarding the issue of bulk
transportation.
With the repeal of Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of
1987, there will now be two jurisdictions in the same sector of
economic activity. Currently, bulk transport permits are issued by
the Government of Quebec and conditions are quite strict. This is
why things are now quiet in that sector.
Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 being repealed,
Quebec will now have another type of permit coming out of the
woodwork. In other words, some people will have a federal bulk
hauling permit without being subject to Quebec regulations.
What is worrying some people, and justifiably so, is that there
will be two types of shipper, with two types of permit, federal or
Quebec. For your information, the Quebec permit is subject to very
stringent regulations, and it has been eminently satisfactory to
everyone since its inauguration several years ago. It suits truckers
because it has restored tranquility, whereas from now on there can
be people who are federally licensed and not subject to Quebec
regulations. There is a huge risk of anarchy, because truckers
subject to the Quebec regulations will be competing with others
who are not.
(1355)
We have, however-the trucking companies even more than
ourselves-tried to make the government, the industry and
transport ministers, see reason on this. The Minister of Health was
not involved in this debate unfortunately. He would no doubt have
understood the situation, judging by the openmindedness we have
seen in him.
Unfortunately, we had to settle for dealing with the industry
minister, the same one as today, as well as with the former Minister
of Transport. These negotiations were fruitless and the bulk haulers
will now have to live with this legislation, which-and we are only
too pleased to repeat this again and again-will jeopardize the
peace there has been until now in this sector.
There is a risk of anarchy, because there will be two types of
operator: the ones subject to the unstructured and unregulated
federal law and the ones with a permit from the Government of
Quebec and covered by Quebec regulations, which to date have
proven their worth. It most unfortunate once again that the
government was not more open to representations from the official
opposition on this.
We support this bill, because we sovereignists feel it confirms
the existence of and acknowledges the need for good economic
relations and the future need for a partnership between the
economic entities of Quebec and Canada, after sovereignty is
achieved.
The ties are so close, on this continent, between the economies
of Quebec and Canada that it would make no sense not to equip
ourselves to recognize the importance of these ties, first, and to
make our economies competitive with the foreign economies we
trade with and the strong economies challenging us, second.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will continue later on. I will try to show
the superficiality of this coast to coast agreement. It does not take
long once you have to consider the interest of this entire economic
territory for you to run out of breath and it leads to policies like the
one just proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the
fee structure of coast guard services. With this policy, there is no
hesitation dividing Canada into three and setting fees arbitrarily
without basis or consultation of the parties involved.
_____________________________________________
2703
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the SMILE program in
my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. SMILE stands for Sensory
Motor Instructive Leadership Experience.
Through this program 165 school aged children with special
needs are paired with close to 200 student volunteers from Acadia
University. The goal of the program is to enhance individual
self-esteem by helping to improve the physical skills of the
participants. The positive effects of improved self-esteem spill
over in all aspects of their lives.
The SMILE program has been operating for 14 years and
through tremendous efforts of both volunteers and participants
everyone comes away with a positive experience.
2704
I ask all members of the House to join with me in recognizing
all those individuals who have made this program such a success.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Real Estate Association in consultation with the
Canadian Bankers Association and the Consumers Association of
Canada proposed fair and equitable amendments to the Interest Act
for both mortgage borrowers and mortgage lenders.
(1400 )
They say the act must be amended to: first, provide for mortgage
prepayment, adopting a uniform prepayment penalty that
consumers understand; second, define the interest rate differential
formula based on the remaining term as the best method to achieve
fairness; third, retain the three months penalty currently included in
the National Housing Act; fourth, standardize the formula and right
to prepayment with user friendly terminology to let people
understand what they are signing; and finally, require lenders to
reveal true mortgage borrowing costs to ensure the consumer
clearly understands the terms and conditions.
Government should listen to consumers and representatives
from the Canadian Real Estate Association who are in Ottawa this
week to urge for measures to strengthen consumer rights by
amending the Interest Act.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to congratulate Mr. Fred Woodman on his recent
appointment as chair of the Fisheries Resource Conservation
Council.
Mr. Woodman has been involved in the fisheries for over 40
years. He has held numerous important positions such as chairman
of the Fisheries Council of Canada; chairman of the Fisheries
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador; and chairman of
Newfound Resources Ltd. He has been an active member of the
FRCC since May 1993.
The FRCC will give immediate priority to the development of a
groundfish conservation strategy and the development of a criteria
for the reopening of the fisheries on a sustainable basis. Mr.
Woodman's leadership skills and solid background in fisheries and
conservation will be a guiding force for the council in his
upcoming term.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, 1996 marks the
150th birthday of my hometown, Hamilton, Ontario.
Today in honour of Hamilton's sesquicentennial, His Worship
Robert M. Morrow, mayor of the great city of Hamilton, and son
honneur Lise Landry, mayor of the right honourable Prime
Minister's hometown of Shawinigan, Quebec, announced the
official launch of the Hamilton-Shawinigan sesquicentennial
weekend initiative.
From June 29 to July 1, 150 families from Shawinigan will be
invited to stay and visit with families in Hamilton, to renew and
strengthen the cultural and social bonds between my hometown and
its first twinned city, Shawinigan. The event will foster
understanding, communication and mutual respect on a grassroots
personal level between the proud Canadians living in Hamilton and
Shawinigan.
It is my hope that this display of good natured Canadian
fellowship will inspire similar projects throughout our great
country.
It is with great pride and enthusiasm that I say long live
Hamilton and vive Shawinigan.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were
sad to learn over the weekend of the crash of a DC-9 in the swampy
Florida Everglades.
When it went down on Saturday, the plane was on a flight
between Miami and Atlanta. Our worst fears have now been
realized. None of the 104 passengers and five crew members has
been found.
This air tragedy was one of the most deadly on the North
American continent in over 20 years. This unfortunate event
reminds us of the importance of improving and tightening air
transportation safety measures.
The members of the official opposition today wish to join
Quebecers and Canadians in offering their sincerest condolences to
the family and friends of the victims.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we now know that as many as 20 per cent of
international transactions involving Canadian companies involve
the use of offshore tax havens. This means that as much as $60
2705
billion in one year flows between Canadian companies and foreign
affiliates without being reported to Revenue Canada. And banks we
are told are among the worst offenders. Imagine, corporate tax
evaders and banks which dodge the law.
What is most disappointing about this story though is not the tax
dodgers employed by the corporate elite. After all, we have been
talking about that issue for years. What is most disappointing is
that the government has known for years about this problem-the
report was compiled in 1991-yet it has mustered little more than a
lame response.
Canadians are tired of paying more taxes, receiving fewer
services, watching the banks and big resource companies have their
best times ever while paying lower taxes or even dodging them
altogether.
It is time the government acted on behalf of those Canadians
who pay taxes and pay the freight. It is time the government closed
the loopholes on its wealthy corporate friends, just as New
Democrats have been saying for some time now.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
francophone from outside Quebec, I would like to express the
disappointment and anxiety I felt when I heard the comments made
by a former Franco-Ontarian, who is now the hon. member for
Québec-Est.
(1405)
Strange how all of a sudden the Bloc Quebecois seems
concerned about francophones outside Quebec. It recognizes us
only as an excuse to criticize the government.
Franco-Manitobans have fought long and hard for the right to
speak and live in French. We now have our own school board, the
largest French-language university and community college in
western Canada, a newspaper, radio and television stations, theatre
and music in French, and much more.
I applaud the tenacity and dedication of all francophone
communities outside Quebec, which are doing all they can to
survive and being quite successful despite the pessimistic and
destructive attitudes of a few.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the start of National Mining Week today I am sounding
alarm bells about the future of Canadian mining.
Last week the head of the Prospectors and Developers
Association of Canada said: ``Canada is losing market share of
exploration capital at an alarming rate''. As a prospector myself, I
can assure the House that unless we fix our mining regulatory mess
today, Canada will not have the new mines it needs tomorrow.
We must understand that we have had 15 years of declining
mineral reserves from 1980 to 1994. The recent slight increase in
investments results almost entirely from only two discoveries:
diamonds in the Northwest Territories and nickel in Labrador.
Canada has the geology. We have reliable land tenure. But we do
not have a simple, clear and timely system of government
regulation. This government must deliver now on its promise of
regulatory reform for mining or say goodbye to thousands of future
Canadian jobs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the less
than flattering statue of Louis Riel in front of the Manitoba
legislature was replaced yesterday by one that befits this great man
and his role in the history of Quebec and Canada.
Now that the father of Manitoba has been so honoured, the Bloc
Quebecois hopes the next step, an even more important step that
this House should take, will be to unanimously agree to quash the
guilty verdict against Louis Riel.
This would show that John A. MacDonald's mentality no longer
prevails. In 1896, he told Quebec's Lieutenant-Governor, Rodrigue
Masson, and I quote:
[English]
``He shall hang, even though every dog in Quebec barks in his
favour''.
[Translation]
In other words: ``He shall hang, even though all dogs in Quebec
bark in his favour''.
2706
[English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify recent statements I made on
temporary employment.
Lately I have talked with the heads of several very fine
temporary service firms. I wish to salute these fine honest firms,
many of which are proud members of the Federation of Temporary
Help Services.
Over the years this industry has developed a strong code of
ethics and standards, to the point where today's legitimate
operators display a high degree of professionalism. For instance,
no portion of a temporary worker's wage is held by recognized
temporary service firms which pay fair hourly wages, offer full
statutory benefits and often provide job specific training.
As well, reputable temporary service firms do not charge a sign
up fee to employers.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to a fine group of young students who form the
school band at Bedford Junior High. They have just returned from a
fantastically successful trip to Orlando, Florida where they took
part in the All American Music Festival.
This band was the only junior high band at the festival. It was
selected the most outstanding concert band, the most outstanding
jazz band and the most outstanding ensemble for the jazz band
trumpet section. They were the youngest musicians at the festival.
I hope all members will join me in congratulating Mr. Gary
Adams, their teacher, and all these find young musicians for their
tremendous success and hard work.
* * *
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to pay tribute to Senator Jack
Marshall, a former parliamentarian of this House who was recently
inducted into the distinguished Order of Canada.
The Order of Canada recognizes Canadians from a variety of
fields and backgrounds and pays tribute to their outstanding service
and dedication to our country.
Senator Jack Marshall worked tirelessly as the MP for
Humber-St. Georges-White Bay from 1968 to 1978. He then
served Canada in the other place for 17 years.
(1410 )
The motto of the order means ``they desire a better country''.
There is no question that Senator Marshall was dedicated to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the people of Canada.
Senator Marshall was and continues to be a powerful advocate for
Canadian veterans rights. Today he continues to volunteer his
service to Canadians from within the Parliament offices. Such is
the calibre and the dedication of this man.
Today it is appropriate for us as parliamentarians to recognize
the dedication of this great Canadian and his award of the Order of
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has once again been asked to withdraw his reform
proposal, this time by representatives of the coalition against the
unemployment insurance reform.
Representatives of the CEQ, the CSN, the FTQ and the
Fédération des femmes du Québec have made one last-ditch
attempt at changing the government's mind. They asked the Bloc
Quebecois to table more than 40,000 postcards addressed to the
Minister of Human Resources Development in protest.
Indifference and rashness typify the attitude of every single
government member. Do they not realize that young people,
women, immigrants and regions struggling with high
unemployment, just to name a few, will be hard hit by their reform?
Arrogance and disrespect have a price and there will indeed be a
very high price to pay when the people will finally get a chance to
rebuke this government for not listening, because enough is
enough, after all.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Alberta is
the only province with a law requiring the election of senators. It
has every right to ask the Prime Minister to respect its opinion.
The Senate today is a functioning part of the parliamentary law
making process in Canada. The outdated anachronism of Senate
porky patronage appointments is unconscionable and must end
because senators today, while not elected, are making key decisions
on everything from human rights legislation to the Bank Act.
Last Thursday the Prime Minister said: ``I will name a senator
who I will choose and who will represent my party in the House of
Commons''. He also said: ``At a time when the senators are all
Tories and the House of Commons is building legislation to be
2707
passed, I will use my privilege and exercise my duty to name a
senator who will respect the will of the House of Commons''.
The Prime Minister clearly shows his aggressive arrogance on
this issue when he indicates his belief that the Senate is not for
Canadians but is his tool to give the Liberal Party supporters
patronage appointments.
The Speaker: Colleagues, in these statements we give every
latitude to members, but I would caution all members to not reflect
on the other place in a derogatory fashion.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since this
is national mines week, it is important to stress the economic,
cultural and social contribution of this industry for several regions
of Canada.
For example, the mining sector shaped the development of
several Quebec regions, particularly in the north, where I lived for
a number of years. To this day, the mining industry remains a major
economic development tool. Year in year out, mining shipments
total between $2.5 and $3 billion. The mining industry is also a
major employer, including in rural areas.
To be sure, the challenge for this sector is to turn to high
technology and thus contribute-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his
time is up.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to mention the opening, today, of the Institut
des communications graphiques du Québec, in Montreal.
Through its $3 million financial contribution, the Government of
Canada concretely shows its interest in technological development
and innovation, particularly in Quebec's publishing industry.
This initiative will allow the industry to be at the forefront of
new technologies, thanks to the possibilities provided by
multimedia and the information highway, which have become
indispensable tools for the development of a modern society.
(1415 )
[English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize the
fantastic work that is being done in the education of our young
people.
Mr. Leo Carteri received the Prime Minister's award for
teaching excellence in science a few weeks ago. Recently I was
able to visit his school and attend a ceremony honouring him, his
fellow teachers and of course the students.
Mr. Carteri's students rarely go home from the Canada-wide
Science Fair without at least one prize. Mr. Carteri believes that
competitions like these not only widen the students' academic
horizons but also expose them to the corporate world through
business scholarships.
Canada's youth is this government's priority. I know members of
the House will join with me as I commend Mr. Carteri in helping to
encourage and enrich our young people.
_____________________________________________
2707
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):Mr.
Speaker, there is no minister present and the Prime Minister is not
here, how are we supposed to have a question period in this House?
The Speaker: My dear colleague, we do not generally make
reference to hon. members' presence or absence.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
Minister and concerns the federal government's plan to prevent
Quebecers from having a democratic say in their future.
My question is, therefore, for the Prime Minister, or one of the
other referendizers, although I see none of them around either. So I
will ask somebody to answer for them because Quebecers are
waiting for a government answer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gauthier: I trust that they will heed what the Prime
Minister wrote in his book entitled In the Lion's Den. In it, the
Prime Minister of Canada wrote that if they lost, they would
respect Quebecers' wish and accept separation. That is what the
Prime Minister of Canada wrote.
My question then-
2708
Ms. Fry: Get to the question.
An hon. member: Question.
Mrs. Picard: They do not like to hear that, do they?
Mr. Gauthier: No, they do not like to hear that, Mr. Speaker,
the-
The Speaker: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to please
get to his question.
Mr. Gauthier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Having stated he would respect Quebecers' wishes and accept
separation, could the Prime Minister or somebody else on his
behalf explain whether, having jumped into bed with Guy Bertrand
to deny Quebecers' right to decide their own future, he is not now
denying what he himself wrote not that long ago?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we do recognize the
right of the people of Quebec to express themselves democratically
in a referendum. We deeply respect that right. But the Quebec
attorney general has said something more. In the Bertrand case, the
Quebec attorney general said that the Constitution and the courts
had nothing to do with the process of Quebec's achieving
independence.
(1420)
We believe in the rule of law in Canada. As the attorney general
of Canada, it is my responsibility to take part in the Bertrand case,
not in order to back Mr. Bertrand, but in order to respond to the
position taken by the attorney general of Quebec against the rule of
law in Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government's action must be interpreted as a
challenge to Quebecers' right to decide their future themselves.
The government is trying to subordinate this right of Quebecers to
a decision by the courts.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, with this action and by
trying to join forces with Guy Bertrand, not only is he launching a
direct attack on sovereignist Quebecers, that is obvious, he is
attacking all of Quebec including his former partners on the no side
in the latest referendum?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those who know our position know
this is not true. As I said, we recognize the right of the people of
Quebec to express themselves in a referendum. It is another matter
entirely, however, when the attorney general of Quebec says the
Constitution may be nullified by popular vote. It is not true, and I
cannot, as attorney general of Canada, stand on the sidelines in the
light of the position of the attorney general of Quebec.
So, we decided to get involved in the matter, not to support Mr.
Bertrand, but to support the rule of law. We have had the
opportunity since last August to become involved in Mr. Bertrand's
case and we decided not to. It is not our intention to support Mr.
Bertrand; we are there only to support the rule of law and the
Constitution of Canada for all Canadians, including Quebecers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice is knocking himself into a cocked
hat in an effort to prove he is not supporting Guy Bertrand, but
everyone in Quebec knows, everyone in Canada knows, that the
federal government is joining forces with Guy Bertrand to please
the rest of Canada.
Since he is so good at explanations, perhaps he would explain
why the Prime Minister told Quebecers, before the latest
referendum, that a yes would mean an irreversible outcome, when
he had planned at that point a legal challenge to the right of
Quebecers to decide their future? Perhaps he could explain.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you have to look at the facts. The
facts are that we did not get involved in Mr. Bertrand's case to
support Mr. Bertrand. We have had the opportunity to become
involved since last August.
It was only once the attorney general of Quebec said, a few
weeks ago, that the Constitution did not apply to Quebec's move to
independence that we decided it was necessary to become involved
on behalf of Canadians and the rule of law.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition can say what he said today,
but it is not right. The facts are clear. We decided to take part in this
matter only in response to the position taken by the attorney
general of Quebec.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, at the time of the last referendum campaign, the Prime
Minister told Quebecers, so that they would vote no, that their
decision was irreversible and that he would respect their decision.
Now, six months later, he is launching his government into a court
challenge to deny Quebecers the right to decide on their future
democratically.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister
admit that the strategy he has adopted is one of confrontation, the
sole purpose of which is to provoke the people of Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government recognizes clearly that referendums are a
2709
means for the public to express its opinion, and there is no doubt
that democratic means such as referendums are open to Quebec, as
they are open to Canada.
It is also clear that the Constitution of a country is not and cannot
be amended through a referendum in just one part of a country, and
that constitutional law and the internal law of a country are the laws
that govern popular decisions and that allow constitutions to be
changed. In this case, the Constitution and internal law indicate
what means we may take to change the Constitution.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the minister that Quebec never signed the
1982 Constitution and its amending formula.
Can the Prime Minister offer any justification for his
constitutional about-face other than that he has now decided to
implement Plan B, a hard line approach with Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
goal has always been to reconcile Quebecers of all stripes with the
rest of Canada, and to pass legislation and implement policies that
will allow us to improve the well being of Quebecers and
Canadians alike.
As a Quebecer, I must say that it is clear-
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): We will show you
the Verdun tape, we have it.
Mr. Massé: I see that the Bloc Quebecois is reduced to negative
slurs. Unfortunately, I must point out that when they say we are
getting into bed with Mr. Bertrand, they are insulting one of their
own former colleagues who saw clearly that PQ doctrine did not
correspond to the needs of Quebecers. This is what makes us
federalists, and Mr. Bertrand very clearly realized that the Bloc
Quebecois's goals and policies run counter to the interests of
Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. It relates to the government's
decision to intervene in the Bertrand case.
I think it is important that the minister has recognized the
importance of defending the rule of law, without which the
democratic process has no meaning.
To clarify fully the government's position, is it the position of
the Government of Canada that any change to the constitutional
status of a province would have to be done legally and would
require under the amending formula the consent of all provinces?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is our position that any change in
the make-up of the country would have to be done legally. As to the
precise mechanics or dynamics, that is a matter of discussion even
among academic and constitutional experts. I do not think it is
possible to be categorical in saying exactly what protocol is
required.
However, it is terribly important to emphasize, as is implicit in
the hon. member's question, that democracy and the exercise of
democratic freedoms go hand in hand with the rule of law. It is
possible to exercise democratic freedoms only when the rule of law
is firmly in place.
(1430)
No one should think that mere adherence to the rule of law
means change cannot take place. Change can happen effectively in
a stable and orderly way only when the rule of law prevails, which
is the approach we have taken to this issue.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
was a question I first asked the government on October 17, 1994.
The government declined at the time to answer it, saying it was
strictly hypothetical. It is good we are now answering it but I wish
the government had more precise answers to the specifics on this
issue.
My supplementary question is also from that date. The hon.
member for Vancouver Quadra has written that the federal
government today retains its full constitutional options to allow or
not to allow a referendum vote, to control the content wording of
any referendum question, to control the actual timing of any vote
and to launch its own pre-emptive nationwide referendum legally
superseding any Quebec vote.
Do these statements reflect the position or the constitutional
thinking of the Government of Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member's
question, it is the right of any provincial government to test the
popular will of the population by putting a question in a
consultation process through a referendum.
I think what is brought into sharp focus by the position taken by
the attorney general of Quebec in the Bertrand litigation is the
effect of such a consultative vote. It was implicitly said by the
Quebec attorney general in the Bertrand litigation that should such
a referendum, if it results in a positive vote, can supplant or replace
the Constitution and the rule of law so that they have no application
to the consequences.
To that we take direct and substantial opposition. We have
involved ourselves in the litigation for the purpose of responding to
that position as expressed by the attorney general of Quebec.
2710
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Once again, Mr.
Speaker, we support the intervention in this case, but I think it
is fair to point out that we expect it would be done and will be
done in a broader policy framework on all of these questions.
[Translation]
On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the fear in Quebec is that the
federal government would use the rule of law to deny the political
and democratic will.
Will the minister confirm unequivocally that the political will of
Quebecers, as expressed legally and democratically, will be
respected and that the federal government will negotiate in good
faith?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): It is obvious, Mr.
Speaker, that the federal government respects any wishes clearly
expressed by the people.
It is also obvious that two referendums were held on the issue of
Quebec's separation. Each time, the people of Quebec clearly
indicated they did not want to separate.
If the idea is to get a definitive answer, I cannot help but wonder
why the no vote does not constitute a definitive answer. Why does
the Bloc Quebecois not accept the will very clearly expressed by
Quebecers? They should stop fostering political uncertainty in
Quebec, promoting unemployment across the province and causing
problems to all Quebecers on something on which they have
expressed their will twice already, both times voting no.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board talks about
reconciling Quebecers and Canadians, but he should be concerned
about reconciling federalists. Indeed, Daniel Johnson, the leader of
the no side in Quebec, does not agree with the federal government.
He recognizes the right of the people of Quebec to determine their
own future. The federal government must be really desperate to
make an ally of Guy Bertrand.
(1435)
I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board, who said that
the people of Quebec-those are the words he used-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duceppe: You can bet the Prime Minister will have another
version tomorrow.
He said: ``You have to right to express yourselves, you have the
right to say what you want to be, you have the right to say that
Quebec must become a sovereign country, but you must first ask
for the permission of the rest of Canada''. Is this what he is saying?
I remind him that when Newfoundland joined the Confederation, it
never asked Quebecers whether they agreed or not with that
decision.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a people of Quebec like there is an Abenaki people, a Cree
people and an Inuit people. I hope Quebecers will not deny the
existence of the Abenaki or Inuit people.
The will of the public must clearly be subject to the laws of a
national assembly and to a constitution. When there is a
constitution in a country, the first democratic duty of citizens it to
comply with the law that dictates the major policies in their
country. This is what I am asking the Bloc Quebecois to do.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would point out to the minister that the first province to
recognize the aboriginal nations was Quebec, on March 20, 1885,
well before Ottawa.
The minister can try all he likes to justify himself, but the
government's argument does not wash. This minister is part of a
government that has lost the trust not just of Canadians, but also of
Quebecers, because of its performance with the GST, its bizarre
attitude with the army and its minister, its broken promises on
discrimination, and the hopeless state of constitutional affairs.
Let the minister admit that the sole purpose of this strategy is to
revamp the government's image in English Canada, because it
needs it and, as usual, to do so under the leadership of the Prime
Minister. This is a man who is accustomed to renewing his image at
Quebec's expense, as he has done throughout his political career.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
clearly, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that insults are their best
argument today. In fact, it is their best argument, because if they
are saying that they have recognized the peoples living in Quebec,
such as the native peoples, then why do the native peoples not have
the right, through a referendum as they are saying, to become
sovereign themselves?
We can see only too well that their arguments make no sense and
that it is therefore necessary to have a law setting out citizens'
rights and the manner in which they may be expressed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the results
of a recent plebiscite in Alberta demonstrate that grain farmers
want to have the choice to market their grain outside the Canadian
Wheat Board.
2711
In response, Alberta's minister of agriculture has presented the
idea of buying grain from farmers for $1 per load in Alberta and
selling it to farmers for $1 per load in the United States. This
proposal is meant to get around the roadblock thrown in the way
by the Canadian Wheat Board. This would in effect allow farmers
the choice they voted for in the Alberta plebiscite.
Will the minister of agriculture move quickly and allow Alberta
farmers the choice they demanded in the plebiscite?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for the question.
The export of Canadian grain still remains a federal legislative
responsibility. It is not proper for a province to take on unilaterally
a decision which would affect grain farmers right across the
prairies, which would affect their livelihood.
Over the last several weeks the panel we have set up looking at
the grain question has had opportunity listen to the concerns of
every province, including Alberta, and to the problems of all the
producers. It is coming out with a report in June.
We will look at the report. We are certainly concerned about the
whole issue of grain across the country.
(1440 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you have to
wonder if anybody on that side of the House has a clue as to what is
going on in western Canada. Study, study, study and still no answer.
Alberta farmers have already spoken on this issue. The
minister's refusal to act is costing farmers about $2 a bushel at a
time when they desperately need money to plant their crops. Why
will this minister not act for a change? Farmers need the money
now.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear
that the minister has acted. He put together a panel to study the
grain issues in this country and he is making certain that every
voice is heard. He is making certain that this grain panel has the
opportunity to report back to the government before action is taken.
It is proper when a panel or a group is put in place to give it time
for its consultations and to listen to its recommendations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On October 24 in the Verdun auditorium, the Prime Minister
stated that he agreed with the Quebec people's desire for change.
He went on to say, and I quote: ``I supported that position in the
past, I support it today, and I will support it in the future, whatever
the circumstance''.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile his smooth talk on the eve
of the referendum with his current attempt to deprive the Quebec
people of their fundamental right to decide their own future?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, it is not a matter of depriving the Quebec people of their
fundamental right to decide their own future.
What is essential in this desire for change is that governments,
whether it is the Government of Canada or the provincial
governments, put in place policies that are more in line with the
needs and expectations of their people.
If you look at our government's throne speech, you will see that
we indicated our intention to effect the changes needed either in the
economic union or in the social union to better meet the needs of
Canadians. That is what a good government does and that is what
we did in the past and will continue to do in the future.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the past is any indication of the future, what awaits
Quebecers in the future is an unemployment rate even higher than
today.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the reason for his about-face
is his fear of losing the next referendum? Now that they know they
almost lost it, they are really afraid of losing the next one.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, what is at issue in this case is which government policies
will help Canadians, including Quebecers, better deal with the
problems of tomorrow. That is what people are afraid of. Yes, the
matter of the referendum does increase uncertainty in Quebec,
reduce investment and aggravate unemployment, and that is what
people are afraid of.
As those who conduct door-to-door polls in the Montreal ridings
realize, people know that the option advocated by the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois reduces the number of jobs,
reduces investment in Quebec, reduces their income, and that is
what they are afraid of. What they want is good government and
not the uncertainty of a referendum.
2712
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans is in deep water over his west coast
revitalization plan. Why will he not come clean over the issue of
allocation?
He knows if land claims go the way of the Nisga'a deal, then 50
per cent of the fish catch will go to native only fisheries. Will the
minister admit that the real reason for his buy back plan, which will
destroy the lives of thousands of fishermen, is not to reduce the
number of fish caught, but to transfer the rights to catch fish from
one group of fishermen to another?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I notice that today the hon. member is saying 50 per
cent. Last week it was 25 per cent. I am not sure what the number
will be tomorrow.
I remind the hon. member and the House that the purpose of the
plan to revitalize the Pacific salmon is essentially to give fishermen
a choice. The choice is to exit the fishery, to stay in the fishery and
continue to fish in one area or to expand investment in the fishery
by buying licences from those who exit the fishery and essentially
give the salmon a better chance.
(1445)
It is a plan that was developed in consultation with fishermen. It
is a plan that has a lot of support in British Columbia and it is a plan
that will work.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the
minister who cannot get his numbers right. His rhetoric leads me to
believe that he is in cahoots with B.C. Premier Clark on this issue.
The premier is prepared to give away one-half of the catch. The
minister is prepared to reduce the fleet by one-half. The ratio of
boats to fish will not change.
Will the minister come clean and admit that the real agenda of
the government is to transfer the right to catch fish from one group
to another?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member is under the
impression that Mr. Clark is helping me with this plan.
I am delighted to move forward. If Mr. Clark is happy to help me
with support in one area, fish habitat, because protecting fish
habitat against damage caused by logging, mining, highway
construction and urban development are certainly areas where I
could do with some help.
I thank the hon. member for raising the subject. I look forward to
any help that Premier Clark can give me on this plan.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister, wherever he may be, wherever
he may be hiding.
The Speaker: The question please, dear colleague.
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, here is my question. Is the Prime
Minister aware that, by jumping into bed with Guy Bertrand, he is
directly in opposition to the person who was the head of the Quebec
no side during the referendum?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister,
who is in Quebec, I would like to say first of all that our
participation in the case before the courts in Quebec City this week
is not to support Mr. Bertrand, but to support the rule of law.
I think it is very important to emphasize that the rule of law is
what gives stability to the country, Quebec included, for the people
of Quebec. Democracy and the rule of law are directly linked. I
think this is very important, and that is why we are involved in this
case before the courts.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, where
is the government headed with its strategy, a strategy which denies
democracy, while at the same time going up against its former
Quebec allies on the no side?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they talk of democracy. A
referendum can be held in order to determine the opinion of the
population. That is democracy.
But it is not democratic to say, once such a consultative
referendum has been held, that the Constitution as a whole, the rule
of law in this country, have been removed or nullified. That is not
democracy. It is antidemocratic to say such a thing, and we are
before the courts in Quebec City this week simply in order to
support the principle that, above all, in Canada we have the rule of
law, which applies for the good of all Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the constituents of my riding of Mississauga East and countless
other Canadians are struggling to keep their businesses and
households afloat while being drained by rising fuel prices.
2713
There is a strong and growing sentiment that gasoline subsidies
are unfairly inflating prices to the detriment of the consumer.
Will the Minister of Industry explain what steps the government
is taking to address this longstanding grievance?
(1450 )
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre
and five other citizens of Canada filed with the director of
investigations and research a request, pursuant to section 9 of the
Competition Act, for an inquiry into gas pricing in Canada.
Today the director has initiated a formal inquiry, pursuant to
section 10 of the act in response to the section 9 request.
The member for Ottawa Centre and other members who have
raised this issue deserve credit for taking some initiative in this and
for filing the appropriate request for an inquiry. The director will
investigate. If he finds evidence he will act accordingly.
I point out to the House that as recently as this January he was
successful in obtaining a conviction under the Competition Act and
a fine of $50,000 was levied against Mr. Gas here in Ottawa for the
offence of price fixing.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
apparently the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is setting its
nets to catch another $14 million a year by taxing boats across the
country, including recreational boats. This will apply to previously
untaxed vessels such as small motor boats, sailboats and even
rowboats.
I am not sure if the tax will be so much an oar, so much a seat or
so much a mile. Regardless, my question is about the $14 million.
Is this supposed to address a safety issue? Is it merely a pain in the
oar, or is this just another tax grab?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. In Ontario alone, there were
four deaths involved in recreational boating this past weekend.
The idea of recreational boating fees is based on marine safety.
The industry has suggested that government may want to help by
making sure that those who go on the water, whether in a small boat
or a large boat, are first trained in safety and have the qualifications
and the training courses that are necessary to ensure that the loss of
life, be it on salt water or freshwater, is kept to a minimum. We
hope to be able to contribute in that area.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
safety is a big issue but obviously taxes are also a big issue.
In the March throne speech, the government was very clear that
there would be no new taxes. Since then we have had tax increases
on fishermen, tax increases on cassette decks, tax increases on
retirement and now a new tax on rowboats.
The throne speech said one thing, the government is doing
another. Is this broken promise another act of God or are we merely
heading into uncharted waters looking for more tax revenue?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that he is
not in favour of more marine safety. Is he suggesting that the
taxpayer should pay it?
We are using a policy which has been used before by this
government, and which I am sure they have used in their budget
suggestions: services that are provided to the public should not be
paid for by the taxpayer but by those who use the service. That is
the principle at issue here.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last week, barely five hours after the minister was questioned
about the dubious arrest of Corporal Purnelle, seven charges were
laid against the latter, because he allegedly defied the orders of a
superior who wanted to prevent him from giving evidence before
the Somalia commission.
How does the minister justify the fact that, five hours after he
stated in this House that no member of the army was or would be
prevented from giving information to the commission of inquiry,
seven charges were laid against this corporal, who had the courage
to defy the order of his superiors and give evidence before the
commission?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer I
gave the hon. member for Charlesbourg last Wednesday and the
answers of my parliamentary secretary on Friday are exactly the
case.
2714
There is no incompatibility with coming forward, giving
evidence to the commission and also obeying the rules and
regulations of the Canadian Armed Forces. There is no
incompatibility. I am surprised the hon. member is continuing to
raise this question.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think the minister and the parliamentary secretary are hiding
behind the supposed military discipline, but this does not satisfy
the people. I think the minister has no choice but to withdraw the
charges against Corporal Purnelle.
Otherwise, the minister will be telling other military personnel
that they will be court-martialled if they co-operate with the
commission to shed light on events in Somalia.
Is this the message the minister wishes to send?
(1455 )
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two
messages to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. First, all of
them, if they have evidence germane to the inquiry, are expected to
come forward. The second is that as a member of the armed forces
they are obligated to follow the rules and procedures of the
National Defence Act. That is a condition of their service. There is
no incompatibility between the two.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to follow up on the question of the hon. member for
Charlesbourg.
The Minister of National Defence instructed soldiers to bring
forward any relevant evidence to the Somalia inquiry, promising
there would be no reprisals. Corporal Michel Purnelle finds that
hard to believe. He tried to appear before the commission but was
arrested even after the commission had told military authorities it
wanted to see him.
Why is the minister, contrary to his assurances, permitting his
department to intimidate witnesses?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was expecting
to get this kind of question from the hon. member for
Charlesbourg, but to get it from the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands, a former colonel in the armed forces, who
knows full well everything that should be known about the military
justice system, is to me quite disheartening.
The fact is there is a military justice system. People are obliged
to follow the rules. They are also obliged to come forward to give
evidence to the inquiry. There is no incompatibility here.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at this moment the military justice system is under a bit of a cloud
and I think the minister should simply reassure us.
In a letter to the commission, Corporal Purnelle said that he felt
vulnerable to abuse of power and was even fearful of physical
violence because he had come forward. The minister must send a
clear signal to his department about openness.
To prove that he will tolerate no interference with this public
inquiry, will he ensure that Corporal Purnelle's future career is not
adversely affected by having come forward? What will he do to
ensure that military authorities do not again hinder or intimidate
potential witnesses?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have stated in
the House before that no one would suffer any reprisals for coming
forward to the commission. That message has been sent loud and
clear.
The hon. member asked for a clear message. What could be
clearer than the Minister of National Defence publicly stating in
the House of Commons that all members of the armed forces have
an obligation to come forward and that there will be no reprisals?
However, the minister cannot and will not interfere in the
judicial process which is taking place.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise
the House on the department's participation in a demonstration
project promoted by the International Association of Firefighters to
identify hazardous materials in transit, a project code named
``Operation Respond''?
Could the minister indicate if the demonstration project will be
extended to a Canadian site?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
We have sent two observers to the ``Operation Respond'' sites in
the United States and they will continue to be there monitoring
what is taking place. If they come across procedures or come up
with suggestions that would improve our system, we would be very
pleased to look into those. That is why they are there.
I would like to add that right now we do have a very good
emergency response information centre, the Canadian Transport
Emergency Centre, or CANUTEC, which operates 24 hours a day,
seven days a week.
2715
Concerning his last question with respect to sites in Canada, if
these are proceeded with, we will look into incorporating them
into the types of studies we are doing at the present time.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
He will know that while in opposition he and his Liberal
colleagues opposed Conservative cuts to UI that were not as deep
as those they are pushing through the House today. Indeed, the
minister's predecessor said the Tory cuts made Margaret Thatcher
look like Mother Theresa by comparison.
As the red book committed the Liberals to restore public trust
and confidence in government, would the minister tell the House
how public trust and confidence in government can possibly be
restored with such an about-face on UI?
(1500 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is important to recognize
in all of this, and I am sure the hon. member is aware of it, is that
we have gone through two years of discussions and consultations
across the country on the reforms to the employment insurance
program. I do not think very many pieces of legislation in the
history of this place have been subjected to the same kind of
scrutiny.
I do want to say to my hon. colleague that one thing which has
been very positive from the exercise has been the tremendous
contribution made by members of Parliament who sit on
committees and who attend the meetings of those committees.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Chen Bangzhu, Minister of Internal
Trade of China, and his accompanying party.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I also wish to draw the attention of the House to
the presence in our gallery of Mr. Serge Poignant, member of the
Committee on cultural, family and social affairs of the National
Assembly of France and MNA for Loire-Atlantique.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
2715
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition which contains over 330 signatures from Manitoba
supporting the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to
prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. These
signatures are of people from all age groups who firmly believe
that discrimination on any basis should not and cannot be tolerated.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, because of certification, I was unable to present this
petition before the passage of Bill C-33. However, it is still my
privilege to present the petition on behalf of approximately 240
individuals from Edmonton.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the human rights act not be amended to include the term sexual
orientation, in order that no Canadians receive special rights or
privileges based solely on sexual behaviour.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like the previous
member, this petition has to do with Bill C-33 but was not certified
in time.
(1505 )
I rise today to present to Parliament a petition signed by 484
people in my riding and from other parts of Alberta. The petitioners
call upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation, that which
the courts have declared to be the law.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of
presenting two petitions.
In the first petition the petitioners pray that Parliament not
amend any act or code to include sexual orientation as a prohibited
grounds of discrimination.
In the second petition the petitioners pray and request that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human
Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships
2716
or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined
phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, it is an honour for me to present a petition on
behalf of the constituents of Lincoln. The petition is signed by 410
constituents who are calling on Parliament not to amend the
Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and
to refer the problem of educational reform in that province back to
the Government of Newfoundland for resolution by some other
non-constitutional procedure.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have some petitions.
The petitioners request that Parliament refrain from passing into
law any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex
partners.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of a
deserving but ignored group of Canadians. They call upon
Parliament to consider the advisability of extending benefits or
compensation to veterans of the wartime merchant navy equal to
that enjoyed by veterans of Canada's World War II armed services.
This petition was signed by 75 members of the lower mainland
and I am pleased to present their petition.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
petitions containing several hundred names from all across Canada.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that will
ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while
impaired or causing injury or death while impaired does reflect
both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward
the crime.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on behalf of a number of petitioners from across
Saskatchewan. They raise concerns about the possible increase in
gasoline taxes which they believed we were prepared to include in
the budget. On their behalf I do want to raise them now and I am
pleased to do so.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today.
The first one states that whereas the traditional heterosexual
family is the building block upon which society is based, the
petitioners request that Parliament refrain from passing into law
any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex
partners. Further, they request that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the human rights act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval
of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending
the human rights code or the Canadian Human Rights Act to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined
phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against traditional families who make the choice to
provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the
chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition comes from Elmira, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
(1510 )
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
2717
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2717
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19,
an act to implement the agreement on internal trade, be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
conclude by repeating the remarks I was making concerning the
establishment of a coast guard fee structure.
Before the ink has even dried on this internal trade agreement,
supposedly designed to stimulate commercial activity, hence
strengthening economic and trade ties between various parts of
Canada, a fee structure is imposed by the coast guard for services
provided by ships operating in Canadian waters, which will only
create division at a time when efforts are made to effect economic
unification once and for all. As a result, three main regions will be
created-the western region, the central region and the
maritimes-with three completely different tariffs. This in itself
flies in the face of the political will expressed at the time the
agreement was signed.
This goes to show how difficult it is to run this country-it is a
virtually impossible task-and the lack of a cooperative spirit.
In conclusion, one can say without fear of being mistaken that
the federal government is dealing a blow to Quebec, to the people
living along the St. Lawrence, to all the ports along the St.
Lawrence, where 85 per cent of Quebecers live, without consulting
even the most influential of stakeholders, who come from the City
of Montreal, for example, from the entire urban community in both
Montreal and Quebec City, who made representations again last
week, in addition to the private users who came to testify and the
representatives of aluminum plants and logging operations.
They told the government: ``Do not impede our ability to
compete with foreigners''. The government retreated into silence
and arbitrary measures. They continued in that direction, deciding
last Thursday to impose the first stage in the new fee schedule, $20
million, and in the process sacrificing the political will that was
supposed to exist in this agreement.
In spite of the fact that there was no real consultation, and this
was strongly criticized, the minister is relying on a study called
IBI, which is in fact a survey. This study was condemned by all
those who appeared before the committee. Of 49 witnesses, 37
asked for a moratorium, so that the situation can be examined to
find out once and for all the economic impact of this measure on
users and to make a true description of services provided to users,
given that the government wants to tax them. Make no mistake
about it: this is a tax. It must also be demonstrated that the Coast
Guard did undergo a self-imposed streamlining exercise, as it
claims to have done, given that the majority of the witnesses doubt
that this is the case.
In conclusion, signing this agreement and imposing this new fee
structure both confirm, yet again, this government's lack of vision.
(1515)
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak on Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal
trade.
With all the issues we are faced with today, we may sometimes
lose sight of how important trade is to Canada. From its very
beginnings Canada has been a trading nation. It is the lifeblood of
the country. The well-being of all Canadians depends on our ability
to create and profit from competitive trading environments at home
and abroad.
In the international arena we have been successful in negotiating
and participating in a number of multilateral trading agreements.
We are a founding partner in the North American Free Trade
Agreement which has opened up our trading with the U.S. and
Mexico.
Canada is a member of other trade organizations such as the
WTO and GATT. We understand the need for formal agreements to
set out rules that ensure fair trade between nations and that allow
redress when a country fails to live up to the obligations it has
accepted.
While we have long accepted the need to have rules of order and
to have mechanisms to settle trade disputes on the international
front, until recently we did not come to grips with the need to
establish a framework to govern trade between provinces and
territories within Canada.
We have that framework now in the agreement on internal trade.
This bill, by making necessary and appropriate legislative changes
within the federal jurisdiction, will enable the federal government
to meet its obligations under the agreement and do its part to ensure
the agreement is fully implemented.
The agreement on internal trade was signed by the Prime
Minister and all other first ministers in July 1994. The agreement
2718
is a made in Canada agreement to govern trade between provinces
and territories and to open the domestic market to the freer flow of
goods, services, people and capital.
The agreement provides a comprehensive set of rules that
requires the reduction of existing ones and which prohibits the
erection of new trade barriers. The agreement also sets out specific
obligations in ten economic sectors.
It makes undertakings to streamline and harmonize regulations
and standards between provinces and territories and has put in
place a formal mechanism to resolve domestic trade disputes.
One of the most important points is that the agreement on
internal trade, which Bill C-19 implements at the federal level,
contains a formal commitment from all its parties, that is, from all
10 provinces and the territories as well as the federal government.
The commitment is to continue the process of trade
liberalization within Canada within the framework of the
agreement.
The need for this agreement has been well documented. We are
all aware of examples of restricted trade practices or regulations
which discriminate against certain businesses and labour groups.
These measures range from outright restrictions to bidding on
government contracts to regulations affecting the mobility of
labour or professionals between provinces, to differing standards
for food or beverage products from one jurisdiction to the other.
We need to reduce these barriers through interprovincial trade in
goods and services and to remove restrictions on the movement of
people and capital within the domestic marketplace. The problems
the agreement on internal trade is designed to address were built up
over a long period.
Since Confederation there has developed in Canada a tangle of
measures both well intentioned and deliberately protectionist
which have prohibited interprovincial trade and restricted the free
flow of persons, goods and services and capital between provinces.
Our government and all governments in Canada have come
under strong pressures from the business community to change the
scenario and to deal with the problems associated with internal
barriers to trade and with the conflicting regulations on cross
border flows of people and capital.
We have had representations from many leading business groups
such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, the Canadian Construction Association and
the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, to name a few.
It is important to point out this is not just big business speaking
out. Small and medium size enterprises also feel the negative
consequences of barriers to trade between provinces and territories.
The criticism and pressure is not just that of isolated interest
groups; it has come for sound economic reasons.
(1520)
These barriers put Canadians and Canadian businesses at a
comparative disadvantage by restricting the size of the domestic
marketplace, the ability to develop competitive skills as well as
abilities that allow Canadian businesses to compete globally.
In a time of increasing global competition and more open
markets in other parts of the world this can have the additional
negative impact of putting Canadian businesses at a disadvantage
to international competitors even in our own marketplace. It is no
wonder that a recent survey by the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce found that 67 per cent of Canadian businesses thought
governments were not moving fast enough to eliminate internal
trade barriers and impediments.
There is a cost to labour and to consumers. Overall it has been
estimated that barriers to trade within Canada cost Canadians in the
order of $7 billion annually in direct jobs and income loss. This
problem has a direct impact on all parts of Canada and on all
elements of society.
Governments have become the subject of pressure from the
internal market issue. The reason is that it is quite simply wrong for
any Canadian government for whatever local politically expedient
reason to discriminate against Canadians because of where they
live or work, because of where they learned or developed their
skills and first had them recognized, because of where they bank or
do business or because of where they sell or manufacture their
goods and services.
The economic cost to Canada is high. Internal barriers and
impediments tear at our national fabric. It is a cause for which
governments must bear responsibility. We in the House can do
something to help correct the situation by passing this bill. Internal
trade is not just a federal government issue. It ranks high on the
agenda of all of the provinces.
When the provincial and territorial leaders met at the annual
premiers conference in St. John's, Newfoundland they renewed
their commitment to the objective of reducing barriers to the free
movement of persons, goods, services and investment in Canada.
This agreement belongs to all of its parties. Its implementation is
the responsibility of all of its parties, not just that of the federal
government.
In order to address some misunderstandings of parts of the bill
and to make manifest the intentions of the government, the
Minister of Industry introduced amendments that made clear the
exact scope for federal action under the agreement's dispute
settlement procedures.
2719
The legislation before us now is the result of a long process
of negotiation and consultation that has involved Canadians of
different political persuasions and with different regional
perspectives. Even with these different perspectives and priorities
the result has been agreement on the basic rules and framework
for ongoing intergovernmental co-operation on domestic trade and
other economic issues. The agreement on internal trade has give
us that framework. Bill C-19 meets the obligations of the federal
government to implement that agreement.
We must turn the page on what divides us and work toward
economic solutions for Canadians. Together we can better meet the
challenges and bring changes that are necessary. That is why this
bill is important to all Canadians. That is why I support passage of
this legislation through the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote stands deferred
until tomorrow following Government Orders.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I you were to seek it, you would find
unanimous consent to say that it is now 6:30 p.m.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall I call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Accordingly, the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 3.26 p.m.)