37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 038
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 28, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1405
| AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| ARA SARAFIAN
|
| Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| CANADIAN SKI CHAMPIONSHIPS
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
1410
| OUTAOUAIS TOURIST INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| NUNAVUT
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| FRESHWATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1415
| ARTS AND CULTURE
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1450
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1455
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1500
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CODE OF ETHICS
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1505
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1510
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1515
| FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
| Bill C-310. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| NATIONAL HORSE OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-311. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| STATISTICS ACT
|
| Bill C-312. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| TREATIES ACT
|
| Bill C-313. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1520
| TABLING OF TREATIES ACT
|
| Bill C-314. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| TREATY APPROVAL ACT
|
| Bill C-315. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| TREATY PUBLICATION ACT
|
| Bill C-316. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| CONCLUSION OF TREATIES ACT
|
| Bill C-317. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1525
| FUEL PRICE POSTING ACT
|
| Bill C-318 Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-319. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-320. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| FARM INCOME PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-321. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
1530
| PETITIONS
|
| McWatters Mining Inc.
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Census Records
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1535
| Katimavik
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| The Environment
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 10 deferred
|
1540
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Motions Nos. 3 and 4
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
1545
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1550
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1555
1600
1605
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1610
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1615
| Division on Motion No. 3 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
1620
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 9
|
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1625
| Mr. David Chatters |
1630
1635
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1640
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1645
1650
1655
| Division on Motion No. 9 deferred
|
| Division on motion deferred
|
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1700
1705
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1710
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1715
1720
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1725
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1730
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Report stage
|
1750
1800
(Division 39)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
(Division 47)
| Motion No. 14 negatived
|
1805
(Division 40)
| Motion No. 8 negatived
|
(Division 41)
| Motion No. 12 negatived
|
(Division 42)
| Motion No. 13 negatived
|
1810
(Division 43)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
(Division 45)
(Division 48)
(Division 46)
(Division 49)
(Division 50)
(Division 51)
(Division 52)
| Motions Nos. 10, 3, 11 and 4 to 7 negatived
|
(Division 44)
| Motion No. 9 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
(Division 53)
| Motion agreed to
|
1815
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
(Division 54)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
(Division 55)
(Division 56)
(Division 57)
(Division 58)
| Motions Nos. 10, 3, 4 and 9 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
(Division 59)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1820
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Motion No. 232
|
1825
1830
1835
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1840
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1845
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1850
1855
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1900
1905
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1910
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1915
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Social Housing
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
1920
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1925
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1930
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1935
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1940
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 038
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 28, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[Translation]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing
O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
year ago today, Marc Lanthier of south shore Montreal lost his
long fight against cancer.
On behalf of his family, I would like to remind my colleagues
and all Canadians that the month of April is when the Canadian
Cancer Society's campaign for funds takes place.
During that period volunteers will be knocking at your doors
collecting contributions for the fight against cancer. I
encourage you all to be generous with your donations. Help us to
win the battle against this killer disease, which last year alone
took more than 65,000 members of our big Canadian family.
I would also invite all colleagues to place a donation in the
boxes in the two lobbies. All the funds collected will be added
up and sent directly to the Cancer Society at the end of the
month.
I thank members in advance for their generosity.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, better highways rank fourth in my riding's
federal concerns, right after the big three of health care, lower
taxes and paying down the debt.
I recently drove the Trans-Canada Highway from my British
Columbia home to Ottawa. I have seen better back roads in our
major trading partner, the United States.
In the 1800s Ottawa had a vision to link our huge country by
building a railroad. Today the government supports the
information highway but virtually ignores highway infrastructure.
Essential goods and services do not move on the Internet.
Students may visit virtual museums via the Internet but it is
impossible for the tourism industry to provide hotel rooms or
meals to electronic tourists. Accidents on unforgiving roads
impose needless suffering and overload our health care system.
Why not connect Canadians with modern highways following the
same federal-provincial model used for health care and education?
During the present review of the Canada Transportation Act, I
call on the government to fix our highways now.
* * *
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April is
Cancer Awareness Month in Canada. Thousands of ordinary
Canadians, volunteers for the Canadian Cancer Society, will be
knocking on doors and holding special events to raise money for
cancer research, public education activities and support services
for people with cancer.
The Canadian Cancer Society is a national, community-based
organization whose mission is to eradicate cancer and improve the
quality of life of people experiencing cancer and their families.
It is the largest funder of cancer research in Canada. Last year
it contributed over $42 million to its research partners, the
National Cancer Institute of Canada.
It is a cause worthy of everyone's support and we encourage all
to be involved in the fundraising campaign.
* * *
1405
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an editorial in yesterday's National
Post applauds President Bush for ending the American Bar
Association's role in vetting judicial appointments.
The National Post says that this is a good thing because
the American Bar Association has become overly political.
America's top lawyers, according to the National Post, have
committed the deadly sins of endorsing employment initiatives for
minorities, of endorsing a woman's right to choose an abortion,
terrible, according to the National Post, of endorsing
federal funding for the arts and of backing Clinton's failed
attempt to bring in public health care; dreadful ideas, according
to the National Post.
And if that is not enough, the American Bar Association is
further to be condemned for failing to support minimum mandatory
sentences and capital punishment.
Well I guess we know where the National Post sits
politically. Firmly and absolutely to the right, the American
right. National Post? Yes.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.
* * *
ARA SARAFIAN
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to call attention to Mr. Ara Sarafian, an
established author and historian, specializing in the late
Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey.
His multiple contacts in both Europe and the Middle East help
the Princeton based journal Armenian Forum bridge the gap
between the Armenian scholars on both sides of the Atlantic.
He is here in Ottawa today to promote the launching of his
latest book entitled Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire, 1915-1916. It is also known as the blue book which
compiles dozens of verified eyewitness accounts from different
parts of the Ottoman Empire and sheds light on the Armenian
genocide.
Mr. Sarafian is one of the founding directors of the Gomidas
Institute and has edited several of the institutes publications.
On behalf of the House of Commons, all Canadians and myself, I
wish to congratulate Mr. Ara Sarafian on his success.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday all members from the
Liberal Party turned their backs on Canadian farm families when
they voted against increased emergency help.
In spite of the fact that the cabinet intends to ignore the farm
income crisis, the disaster continues. Just yesterday there was
a tragic story from Manitoba. The Farm Credit Corporation held a
forced sale of a family farm. More than 1,000 acres of land,
several farm buildings and a residence were put up for auction.
Not one single bid was made for this farm. There is simply not
enough money in farming.
This farmer was driven to bankruptcy by a government that
ignored the natural disaster caused by excessive flooding in 1999
and turned a blind eye to disastrously low commodity prices.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Because of the Liberal
indifference, we see many forced auctions this year and see that
many farmers will lose their life's work.
The Liberal government has left many Canadian farmers with no
hope this spring.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN SKI CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to congratulate the participants in this week's
Canadian ski championships.
Yesterday, Jean-Philippe Roy won the giant slalom event of the
Canadian Championships at Mont Orford.
Last weekend, at Mont Sainte-Anne, Mélanie Turgeon won her
eighth downhill national title, while Anne-Marie Lefrançois came
first in Super G. Winner of both the men's downhill and the men's
Super G was British Columbia's Kevin Wert.
This successful season puts the Canadian team in a good position
to excel in the 2002 Winter Olympics. We are sure that these
young athletes will continue to be a source of pride to Canada.
* * *
SOCIAL HOUSING
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
social housing is, first and foremost, housing belonging to the
community as a whole and intended primarily to provide decent
affordable accommodation. But Statistics Canada informs us that
just over two of every five tenant households are spending more
than 30% of their income on accommodation.
It has now been six years since the federal government invested
in any new social housing. Groups throughout Canada are asking
the federal government to double funding for housing assistance,
not for so-called affordable housing, which will serve private
interests, but for housing which will rent at below-market rates,
and which will provide a better quality of life and access to
various services and mutual assistance.
1410
The Bloc Quebecois joins with these groups from Quebec and urges
the federal government to reinvest in social housing. It is a
question of justice.
* * *
OUTAOUAIS TOURIST INDUSTRY
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday evening, representatives of the Outaouais tourist
industry gathered at the Canadian Museum of Civilization for the
Ouataouais' 16th Grands Prix du tourisme awards.
Congratulations to Robert Bourassa, the owner and chef of Café
Henry Burger in Hull, who won Canada Economic Development's
international marketing award. Presented to the SMB that made
the biggest impact on the international market, the award is part
of a series of promotional and communications activities
initiated by the Outaouais Tourism Association, in which it has
been joined by Canada Economic Development.
My warmest congratulations to all the winners in this great
celebration of achievement in the Outaouais, and good luck at the
Grands Prix du tourisme québécois awards.
Long live Mr. Bourassa and his team at the Café Henry Burger,
and long live the Outaouais Tourism Association, which is
celebrating its 20th anniversary this year.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I received letters from grade 6
students in the classroom of Miss Bender at St. Volodymyr school
in Saskatoon.
Interestingly, a significant number of them asked that
parliament lower the price of gasoline by reducing the taxes on
gas. Some students cited environmental concerns. Others asked
that we do something to help farmers who these children see
protesting in the news.
Even though they are just children, they understand that their
parents would have more money to spend on their own families if
the government would lower taxes.
I suggest to each and every member of parliament in the House of
Commons that it is not just the children at St. Volodymyr school
who are concerned about such issues, but indeed children across
our entire country.
The past practice of exploiting society's wealth and leaving the
next generation to pay is unfair. The result is a $565 billion
national debt. This represents a mortgage on future generations
of Canadians. Therefore, we have a duty to our children to pay
the debt off. Doing so would make our country a stronger place
in which to live and prosper.
* * *
NUNAVUT
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am happy to inform the House that Patricia Angnakak has been
appointed the first Deputy Commissioner of Nunavut.
During the years I have known Pat Angnakak, I have been
impressed by her commitment to the development of Nunavut. To be
appointed the very first deputy commissioner of the newest
territory of Canada is a great honour and privilege.
Deputy Commissioner Angnakak will represent Nunavut at events
Commissioner Irniq is unable to participate in. I know she will
perform her duties with a great sense of history and pride for
Nunavut.
I would ask my colleagues in the House to join with me in
extending congratulations to Deputy Commissioner Angnakak and in
wishing her every success.
* * *
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have always been able to depend on our plentiful supply
of freshwater but now this precious resource is being threatened
by the inaction of the government.
In British Columbia, there is an outstanding chapter 11 action
under NAFTA. There are ongoing attempts in the Great Lakes to
export bulk water.
Yesterday, Roger Grimes, the premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador, announced that his government will reopen the issue of
the bulk export of water, a move that under NAFTA would eliminate
the ability of other provinces to ban the exportation of bulk
water.
In fact, the government has brought forward legislation, Bill
C-6, which would facilitate the export of our most precious water
supply.
It is time the government showed some leadership and accepted
its responsibility to protect our supply of freshwater. It is
time we have federal legislation that would ban absolutely the
bulk export of our freshwater.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning, 1,700 officers representing some fifty police
forces in Quebec carried out a vast operation across 77
municipalities in order to strike a blow at criminal motorcycle
gangs. No fewer than 150 warrants for arrest were issued on
various charges from conspiracy to commit murder to gangsterism.
On behalf of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, I want to
congratulate all the police forces on their professionalism,
courage and determination. This operation shows just how serious
Quebec police forces are in putting an end to the criminal
activities of these gangs, which threaten public security not
only in Quebec but across Canada.
1415
With this fine demonstration by the police forces, I hope the
Minister of Justice of Canada will understand and give the police
and crown prosecutors real anti-gang legislation, as the Bloc
Quebecois has been requesting for a long time.
* * *
[English]
ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I invite all members to join me at the National Press
Club after the votes tonight to help celebrate the unique
partnership between the Serpent River First Nation and the City
of Elliot Lake in my northern Ontario riding of
Algoma—Manitoulin.
These partners have come together to create the White Mountain
Academy of the Arts, a new fine arts institute dedicated to
teaching both aboriginal and mainstream visual arts.
The academy is unique in North America and deserves our full
support. It is one of the many creative ideas which have been
implemented to diversify the area's economy from the loss of all
the mines which happened a number of years ago.
I ask all members to come out tonight to see some of the art,
meet the students, community leaders, staff and board members who
are working together on an adventure in art which will benefit
all of us for years to come.
I want to congratulate all those involved. I ask all members to
come out and show their support for this very unique project.
* * *
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the softwood lumber issue is coming to a head as we speak and
Canada has yet to establish a united position against the
impending U.S. trade actions.
The risk to the industry and the country is substantial and the
result of countervail and anti-dumping action will be
devastating.
Leading members of the softwood lumber industry are today asking
the Minister for International Trade to convene a meeting of the
managers of the key softwood corporations to establish a unified
stand against this threat.
Time is running out and I ask the minister to follow the advice
of the industry and call a meeting of the industry leaders now.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Watergate tapes had 18 missing
minutes. The Shawinigan papers have six missing years.
On Monday, the Prime Minister said that the ethics counsellor
would release all documents. On Tuesday, the ethics counsellor
admitted that he had not released all the documents. We want to
see the documents that show who owned the shares between 1996 and
1999, the years the Prime Minister was shovelling all that
government money into the hotel next door.
Will he release those documents that show who owned the shares
between 1996 and 1999?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, anyone who can read, can read the documents. It is very
clear that the shares were not mine since November 1, 1993.
I want to repeat that I have complied with the wishes of the
opposition. On March 15, the member for Edmonton North said:
The Prime Minister could get over this in a heartbeat by just
tabling his bill of sale for those shares in 1993.
It was done by the ethics counsellor yesterday morning.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he keeps talking about one of the
documents we wanted on the table. We also want the ones that are
under the table.
Jonas Prince changed his story in 1999 under pressure from the
Prime Minister's lawyers. The former owner said that he had made
a payment of $40,000 and optioned to get himself out of the
agreement. He said that he did not have any more ownership in
the Grand-Mère. That was said by Mr. Prince. However, the
ethics counsellor did not release those documents related to that
transaction in November 1997.
Will the Prime Minister table the documents that reflect on that
transaction in November 1997, the transaction that Mr. Prince
said brought him out of the shares and left them with the Prime
Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor has said, at least 10 times in
front of committee or in the press, that the shares had been
transferred, that he was satisfied and that there was no conflict
of interest.
I think the only thing under the table is the payback that the
Reform Party got from the law firm. It changed the books of the
law firm. The first cheque was signed by the firm and after that
it was an individual who so generously paid $70,000 to the party
after the firm gained $400,000 of legal fees.
1420
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like him to say that outside
the House at five past three today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there are more holes in the Prime Minister's
version than there are in the whole Grand-Mère golf course.
The Prime Minister has released a few selected documents. But
there is a period of six years between 1993 and 1999.
Will the Prime Minister stop hiding the facts and set up an
independent inquiry to settle this scandal once and for all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I said it before and will say it again, I tabled the documents
they asked for. They said if I tabled the agreement of sale,
they would ask no further questions.
[English]
I know a colleague who was in the House for two terms, Jim Hart,
was promised $50,000 if he would resign his seat. He has told
some of my colleagues that it was easy to talk to Liberal members
but the Leader of the Opposition never returns his phone calls
because he does not want to pay.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is hard for us to believe that the
Prime Minister would sell one of his most treasured assets by
writing out an agreement in longhand, without witnesses and
without a deposit.
It is hard for us to believe that it took two years for the
Prime Minister to realize that Jonas Prince had neglected to pay
him $150,000. It appears to us that the Prime Minister never
intended to get paid for the shares, that he intended to take
them back after he retired from politics.
Was this originally meant to be a contract of convenience?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all these matters have been dealt with properly by all
the proper authorities.
As I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition, I was
reminded that I am somewhat of an expert on endangered species,
and there is no doubt that what this leader and a turbot have in
common is that they are both hanging on by their fingernails.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, investors were not rushing
out to buy the shares in this golf course. It took the Prime
Minister six years to find somebody to pay him for his shares.
Had the Auberge Grand-Mère gone bankrupt nobody, not even his
partners, would have been prepared to further invest in the golf
course.
Was not the real reason why the Prime Minister took such a
personal interest in the hotel to keep it afloat, that he was
protecting his assets?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians would do well to remember that members
opposite initially asked for an ethics counsellor investigation.
They got it. The leader of the Conservative Party demanded that
the RCMP investigate the matter. They did, and they closed the
books.
The leader of the Conservative Party, an expert
investigator, a private eye, then asked if the they had asked all
the right questions.
They then asked for the bill of sale. They got the bill of
sale. Yesterday they were complaining there were not 300
original bills of sale.
The Prime Minister has done everything but offer up his
underwear and his socks in this investigation.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister admitted to the House that the purpose of the
September 1999 agreement released yesterday was to end his
involvement in the Grand-Mère golf club. The Prime Minister said
that its purpose was to “wrap up matters as clearly as
possible”. Those were his words.
If matters were still ongoing, this would mean that the Prime
Minister still had financial interests in the Grand-Mère golf
club when he tried to obtain financial assistance for the
Auberge.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the agreement, like his own
statements, shows that he was in complete conflict of interest
when he intervened in the Auberge affair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while the country is wondering what the opposition is up to,
while there are real problems, this is what they are focusing on.
I have answered all the questions.
1425
It was the member for Roberval who said:
Does he not understand that the only way to settle this matter—the
only way, there are not 50 of them, only one—is to
provide us with the record of sale—
This is exactly what was done. This morning, in caucus, we
discussed softwood lumber, health, energy, the North, tobacco,
all sorts of things—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is a sure bet they did not talk about the Prime Minister's
integrity.
When the Prime Minister tells us that releasing the record of
sale should put an end to it, it is because they thought that
that would clear his name but, in fact, everything that has been
tabled has been blackening his name with each passing day; his
integrity is being called into question. Will he admit—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when someone makes a lot of noise, it is because he is wrong. I
have tabled the record of sale. And I see—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: There will be a ménage à trois.
Now the Canadian Alliance has managed to join forces with the
Bloc Quebecois. What a charming trio. Next thing, the leader of
the Progressive Conservatives will be in bed with them.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would by far
prefer to be an ally of my colleagues here than of the people he
befriended in the Auberge affair.
We asked the Prime Minister to table the documents concerning
the golf issue, so that he could restore his integrity. Not only
do the documents tabled yesterday prove that he was in a
conflict of interest, but the Prime Minister now has a financial
interest in making sure there is no inquiry.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, indeed, should an inquiry
be held, he would be required under the terms of the contracts
to pay for the lawyers' fees of others?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I see is that he is insulting everyone.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: First, I sold my shares in the Auberge
in March 1993, six months before I became Prime Minister.
As for the mortgage on the Auberge, the Fonds de solidarité and
the Grand-Mère Caisse populaire are involved. If these are
undesirable partners, I wonder who would qualify as desirable
partners.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister does not have to dodge the issue.
Is it true that the contract provides that he must, with his own
money, pay the lawyers' fees of the other parties should he
agree to a parliamentary committee, which would call them to
testify? In that sense, is the Prime Minister not in a conflict
of interest once again?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will say it again, because they have a hard time understanding.
On March 15, the member for Roberval said:
Does he not understand that the only way to settle this
matter—there are not 50 of them, only one—is to provide us with
the record of sale—
That was done.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The current trade regime uncritically embraced by this
government treats trade as an end in itself. It is a recipe for
the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor.
Under the in common banner, civil society groups want to see
poverty on the trade agenda. They are urging this government not
to sign any more such trade deals until we have a thorough,
transparent evaluation of the contribution of current trade deals
to the increase in global poverty.
Will the Prime Minister agree to do that?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is exactly what we are doing. We are trying to
create growth in the Americas so that there will be more money
for more people, there will be better education and there will be
better social and medical services in all countries of the
Americas.
We are working on a civil agenda to make sure that democracy
will remain in this country. The goal of the meeting is not only
trade. It is to improve the whole of society in all the
countries, in particular the poorest nations of the Americas.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know whether the Prime Minister is just ignorant or whether
he really does not understand the toll current trade deals are
taking on the real lives of real people.
If we take Brazil today, its government is distributing low cost
generic drugs to the poorest of the poor who are suffering from
HIV. For this humanitarian act, Brazil is hauled before the WTO
by multinational pharmaceutical companies.
What is the charge? It is that their right to make money should
take precedence over saving human lives. Will the government
drag us farther down the road to such an—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to inform the leader of the NDP that as
recently as Monday afternoon I discussed with the prime minister
of Italy putting the question of HIV-AIDS on the agenda of the
summit in Genoa in July.
Our goal is to make sure where there are millions of people
dying of AIDS that medication could be made available to them at
the lowest price possible.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister claims there was a bona fide sale to a Jonas
Prince company in 1993. If so, why was it necessary to sign a
side agreement six years later which stipulates that neither J∾
Consultants Inc. nor any other third party will have any right of
ownership or interest in the shares upon transfer of the shares
from Akimbo to Michaud in 1999?
Why the side agreement? Was it because at least one party to
this affair believed that J∾ Consultants Inc. had an interest
in those shares between—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, lawyers who have passed their exams are very prudent
when they draft documents. It is part of the normal
preoccupation of a good lawyer to put in a document to
definitively finalize any transaction.
It was done among lawyers. I read this document yesterday
because everything was dealt with by my trustee and lawyer in
collaboration with Mr. Wilson who is there to advise all the
people in public administration in Ottawa about conflict of
interest and the trust they have to establish to be protected.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
why was it not done in 1993? The Prime Minister told the House
that the value of the shares—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is impossible for the
Chair to hear the right hon. member who has the floor.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, they cannot shout the
House of Commons down. The Prime Minister told the House that
the value of the shares did not matter because it was just a debt
that the Prime Minister wanted to collect.
The documents released yesterday show clearly that the Prime
Minister lost money on the final sale of these shares, so he had
a financial interest and he had that interest when he called the
bank to arrange a share for the auberge. Was one reason that he
interfered with the bank to protect his own interest from—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if that leader of the opposition read the letter that I
sent to him yesterday, he would have found out that tourism is
very important in my riding. I listed at least eight or nine
projects where there were government interventions in a riding
with 20% unemployment to develop tourism. Eight hundred jobs
have been created since this government has been in power to
reduce the unemployment level from 20% to 10%.
With the permission of the Speaker, yesterday I did something
very unusual because—
The Speaker: I am sure the Prime Minister will get more
questions.
1435
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's documents confirm the
Prime Minister's personal interest in the Grand-Mère golf course
in the form of a huge debt whose value was falling.
In spite of this personal stake, he personally intervened in at
least three instances that we know of to prop up the value of
adjoining real estate with public money. Each of these is
covered by a cloud of questionable flip-flops in the Prime
Minister's story and a very apparent conflict of interest.
Why will he not just put these issues in the hands of an
independent inquiry and clear them up for Canadians?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the information that has been asked for and each
process that has been demanded by members opposite have been
fulfilled. Each time information is provided or each process is
fulfilled members opposite say “Let us go one step further”.
It is very clear to the people of Canada that there is no
conflict here and furthermore no wrongdoing. It is quite the
opposite: a prime minister who has gone through extreme scrutiny
has taken the extraordinary step of giving up private
information, a prime minister who has maintained his integrity
after 38 years in public life.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I know that is the government's
official line but it is just nonsense. What the documents showed
was that our concerns about the Prime Minister's conflict of
interest were correct all along.
He did have a conflict of interest. He did have an interest in
the value of the golf course at the time he was pouring public
money into adjoining real estate. These questions have to be
cleared up for the sake of the Prime Minister, the integrity of
his office and for Canadians. Why will an independent inquiry
not be called?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it absolutely incredible that the member
opposite, who initially raised questions about hundreds of
thousands of taxpayer dollars being given to a law firm and the
chairman of the law firm subsequently writing a personal cheque
for $70,000, said the question had to be answered but ever since
has been silent.
Where there is a question to be asked she will not ask it. Where
there are no questions to be answered she stands and raises all
kinds of nonsense. It simply will not fly with the people of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a Toronto alderman stated yesterday that “the Prime
Minister is not allowed to be involved in any issue affecting
interests adjoining his properties”.
Ethics expert Arthur Schafer said that the Prime Minister is in
a conflict of interest situation according to every municipal
bylaw in Canada. He went on to say that he has also probably
breached most provincial codes and possibly even his own federal
rules.
I know of what I speak, having been president of the Union des
municipalités du Québec.
Will the Prime Minister agree with me that, had he been a mayor
instead of Prime Minister, he would have already been called upon
to step down?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, quite frankly no list of continued aspersions, no
continued list of attacks will take away the fact that the RCMP,
which is respected in the country by citizens from coast to
coast, has at the request of members opposite opened the file,
looked at the file, and said there was no basis for any further
investigation.
The ethics counsellor, who was quoted whenever it was convenient
and has come to the conclusion there was no conflict of interest,
has spoken repeatedly. In conclusion, there simply is no
conflict. There is no wrongdoing.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, according to the Commission des affaires municipales
du Québec, any citizen may lay a complaint against an elected
representative suspected of conflict of interest, and the person
who has committed the act is not the one to judge it, but rather
the courts, who can judge it independently. If the Prime
Minister were an elected municipal official, he could not be the
judge of his own actions.
Is the fact that the Prime Minister is both judge and party to
this affair not another conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the opposition has asked the RCMP to look into the matter. They
found nothing and so they closed the file.
The ethics counsellor, who was appointed by the Conservative
Government as Deputy Registrar General, has analyzed the matter,
appeared before the House committees, spoken on radio and
television, and he has always made one thing very clear: the
shares were sold in 1993 and there was no conflict of interest.
1440
The time has come for people to start talking of real problems.
I am very well aware that the opposition is not capable of
attacking the government on its policy, so it amuses itself
trying to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we asked the Minister of Industry about a
breach of the Canada Business Corporations Act. He refused to
answer the question.
I remind the House that as Minister of Industry he has the
statutory responsibility for this act so I want him to answer a
straight question today. Will the minister tell us whether the
share registry of the Grand-Mère Golf Club complied with all
applicable laws?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member has looked at the act he will know that
the minister has a responsibility to respect the privacy rights
of the individuals affected.
He will know further that it is the responsibility of the
directorate to give direction to bring information to compliance.
Once that information is brought into compliance, that
information is made public. The member knows all of that.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister might note that unless he stops his
ministers from shouting, the minister over here will never have a
chance to respond to anything.
Both the Prime Minister and Jonas Prince are corporate lawyers.
They know they are supposed to comply and abide by the law and
have the shareholder registry reflect the real situation. They
know that. Could the Prime Minister provide any record, any
proof at all, that he requested his name be removed from the
registry?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have repeatedly received very conclusive evidence
that the Prime Minister as of November 1993 no longer owned these
shares. Therefore, effective November 1993, the Prime Minister
did not have and should not have had any direction given by him
with respect to how this company operated.
* * *
[Translation]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
among other statements to the Standing Committee on Industry, the
ethics counsellor said that the value of the sale of shares in
the Grand-Mère golf club could neither rise nor fall.
Yesterday's documents indicate clearly that the Prime Minister
lost money in this venture. With this inaccuracy, the Prime
Minister's ethics counsellor has lost whatever credibility he had
left.
How can the Prime Minister not admit that we have before us one
more reason to think that his counsellor tried to cover for him
in all this?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I would have to go back because I know it would
be prudent to find out exactly what it was the ethics counsellor
said rather than take the assertion here in the House.
Second, the fact of the matter is that we know the Prime
Minister actually lost money on the sale as it was disposed by
his trustee. I think most Canadians know that if we had an
unethical prime minister who did not care about the rule of law,
he could have picked up the telephone, called a friend and said
“Buy these shares; make sure I do not lose any money”.
The Prime Minister did not do that. He stayed out of it. He
let his trustee handle it and, yes, he lost money. That shows
how honest he is.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor knows perfectly well that the name
of the Prime Minister remained on the shareholders' record, since
he had examined all the books, so he said.
How does the Prime Minister explain the ethics counsellor's
failing to reveal this fact during the election campaign, other
than in order to keep the fact that he was in a conflict of
interest from the public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
any lawyer knows that a contract is completed with the consent of
the parties. This is something known to every lawyer. When
there is mutual consent, the sale is complete.
In Quebec, this applies even to real estate transactions. In
Ontario, this does not apply to property, but it does for other
personal property.
Everyone knows that. You pick up the phone. You call your
broker and tell him to buy or sell shares. There is no contract,
but you have to pay if you have told him to buy or sell shares.
* * *
1445
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the junior minister of multiculturalism slandered the
people of Prince George and then tried to cover it up. The Prime
Minister said twice yesterday:
In fact, Sergeant Fiona Weller of the B.C. hate crimes unit,
that one RCMP and one local police officer, said she was
telephoned by one Steve Bourne of the minister's office to ask
about cross burnings.
If the Prime Minister will not fire her for intolerance or
slander, will he fire her for making him look like a fool
yesterday?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member referred to Fiona Weller. This lady is an
officer of the Vancouver police department, not of the RCMP.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
For goodness' sake, Mr. Speaker. Sergeant Weller just did an
interview moments ago on CFRA. When she was asked “Are there
any cross burnings in Prince George”, she said “No”. “In
Kamloops?” “No reports”.
She was then asked “Are people upset in B.C.?” She said
“They are upset they are being tainted with the idea of cross
burning. The whole province is getting concerned”.
Then the question was “Does she have to address this with some
finality”, the minister, and Sergeant Weller just said moments
ago “We will be watching”.
When will the Prime Minister fire this minister, or is it just
acceptable government policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, she got up in the House and said that she made a mistake
and she apologized. There was a member of parliament on the
other side who did the same thing.
When this member of parliament campaigned for seven years
against pensions and claimed that she would never take a cent,
that was all right, but right after the election, after telling
everybody in Edmonton that she would never accept a pension,
right after the votes were counted, she turned around and took
the money.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the absence of any questions from the opposition that have any
relevance whatsoever to the lives of Canadians, I would like to
ask the Minister of Industry for his reaction to the recently
announced and very significant job cuts at Nortel.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. There appears to be some
disorder. Perhaps members would like to hear the hon. Minister
of Industry who has the floor.
Hon. Brian Tobin: Mr. Speaker, members opposite may not
be interested in the fact that Canadians, those who work in the
IT sector, may be affected by the layoffs announced by Nortel,
but members on this side of the House are concerned about
Canadians, their jobs and the Canadian economy.
I want to say to the member who asked the question that we do
not know yet the impact of those job layoffs on workers here, in
particular in the Ottawa area. We are monitoring the story
closely. We are talking with Nortel and we are concerned that
Rand D jobs be maintained in this country even as downsizing occurs.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On Friday I
asked that the Prime Minister table all the relevant documents.
The Prime Minister has gone some way toward meeting that request
and has tabled some of the relevant documents, but there is still
need for more light to be shed on the period between 1993 and
1999 where, by virtue of the very fact the Prime Minister lost
money, we see the value of the shares was changing during that
period of time.
In the interest of what the Prime Minister himself has said,
that is to say letting parliament do its job, will he now
initiate an inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied to that. The RCMP and the ethics
counsellor looked into that and reported. I gave all the
documents. I have tabled everything. I said and I repeat, I
never had any conflict of interest. I have not been the owner of
these shares since November 1, 1993. I have no connection at all
with the auberge since February 1993.
The only thing I have done is to help a business in my riding to
create 20 jobs. It is part of the program that is supported by
the provincial government, by the local authorities, by les
caisses populaires, and by le Fonds de solidarité.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker
my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa. Earlier today two Liberal MPs, including the
vice-chair of the foreign affairs committee, called for the
resignation of the minister because he courageously condemned the
operations of Talisman in Sudan in fuelling that bloody civil
war.
The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was earlier singing the
praises of Talisman.
1450
Does the minister stand by his call to Canadians to sell their
shares in Talisman? Does he stand by his call for a tougher
sanctions law? How does he respond to this call by his own
colleagues for his resignation?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does
not call for the divestiture of shares in any company including
Talisman.
The Government of Canada is very concerned about the
incalculable suffering that is going on among the people of
southern Sudan. We call on all companies involved in Sudan to
make sure they do everything they can to bring that tragedy to an
end.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
November 1993 document is not the official and complete bill of
sale. Where is the registration number? Where are the copies of
the corporate resolutions authorizing the sale of shares? Where
is the evidence confirming that the stock certificates were
endorsed?
There are documents missing. Could the Prime Minister ask his
friend, Mr. Prince, to release all the documents, or are we to
think that when he took the oath of office, a few days after the
November 1993 election, the Prime Minister was still an owner of
the golf club?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not here to teach law. The hon. member is asking for
ownership registration. It has nothing to do with a transaction
involving shares. Such a transaction can be completed orally,
provided there are witnesses. No documents are necessary. When I
studied law, many years ago, I learned that no documents are
necessary for such a transaction, provided there are witnesses.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the mystery over the Auberge Grand-Mère continues to
grow with more documents and more questions. It is beginning to
resemble a cheap episode of the X Files, and the truth is
still out there.
There is a six year gap between the original dodgy deal in 1993
and the final sale in 1999. This is an after the fact attempt to
corroborate the Prime Minister's denial of conflict of interest.
Will the Prime Minister voluntarily agree to table all the
documents and account for the relevant six year gap?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to quote the member who just asked the
question. Two days ago he said:
That is exactly what the Prime Minister did yesterday.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada states
that anyone who communicates statements in a public place
inciting hatred against any identifiable group where it is likely
to breach the peace is guilty, including cabinet ministers.
Since it appears that the junior multiculturalism minister has
broken this law by inciting hatred against the people of Prince
George and Kamloops, how can the Prime Minister continue to
insist that she not step down?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, she got up in the House. She said “I made a mistake
and I apologize”.
Miss Deborah Grey: Add Christians to the list too.
Hon. Sheila Copps: What would you know about Christians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: The minister has devoted many
years working very hard to build understanding among Canadians.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Exactly. If you know anything about
Christians, you should change your tone.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Of course she said she made a
mistake and she apologized. We have accepted the apology.
When a member of parliament on the other side made a much worse
offence, he rose and said “I am sorry, I would like to make an
apology”. We are people who respect the tradition of the House
and we have accepted his apology, but I know that type of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not holding his minister
accountable under the hate laws. His government vows to combat
exactly these kinds of slurs. That is what the hate laws are
for.
The only apology acceptable is for the minister to resign. Will
she resign today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the ethics
counsellor said that the documents for the period from 1993 to
1999 were not released because they were not relevant.
Yet, there must be documents from those years that would tell us
why the Prime Minister got involved in the 1999 transaction, when
he claims to have sold his shares in 1993.
I am asking the Prime Minister how the ethics counsellor can
justify his decision not to release the documents for the
1993-1999 period, when it is precisely during that time that the
Prime Minister put himself in a conflict of interest.
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier in question period a member opposite asked
whether or not we in this party had discussed this matter today
in caucus. I should not talk about caucus but I will tell the
member that we did.
I will sat what members told the Prime Minister. They said to
the Prime Minister “You have gone above and beyond the call of
duty. You have answered all the questions. We on this side
think you should now tell them enough is enough”.
I say to the Prime Minister that we on this side have it. We
will stand with you right to the wall on this issue.
The Speaker: Order, please. I hope it is not necessary
to continually remind the House that members must always address
the Chair and not one another.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is right. The Prime Minister does have his back to the
wall right now. He does indeed.
How could the ethics counsellor, who admitted that he is not an
expert in corporate law, arrive at these conclusions? How can we
be sure that his decision does not yet again serve the sole
purpose of protecting the Prime Minister, his boss, his employer?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor has the advice of lawyers at his
disposal and he acts upon that advice, which is more than is
obviously the case on the opposite side of the House.
Members can ask these questions if they like. Let us serve
notice that every day for the next four years we will be here. We
will be doing our jobs. We will do our best to answer.
This Prime Minister and this government are not going away. We
will stay on the job and stay on the real files important to the
people of Canada.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there has been no apology to
Kamloops for the slur. The Prime Minister said yesterday that no
one from the junior minister of multiculturalism's office phoned
the RCMP.
Now we know that Steve Bourne on her staff phoned the B.C. hate
crimes unit. Why will the Prime Minister not fire the junior
minister immediately instead of letting her hide behind him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say that an officer of the Vancouver
office, Fiona Weller, called Mr. Bourne, not vice versa. This is
the way that the discussion occurred.
He never called with the permission of the minister and the
minister never called anybody. Nobody in his office—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I said I was going to respond
to the House of Commons. There was a phone call made by somebody
in the department to the RCMP without any authorization.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, first she said there were
cross burnings in Kamloops, but there were not. Then she said
there were cross burnings in Prince George, but there were not.
Then she said she had a letter from the mayor, but she did not.
Then she said there were no contacts with the RCMP, but there
were.
That is not three. That is four strikes. When will the Prime
Minister finally tell her “You're out?”
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, we have a tradition in the House of Commons. When
somebody gets up and has the courage to say “I made a mistake”
and apologizes, there is a custom that we accept it.
I will have been in the House of Commons 38 years next week. I
have never seen an opposition like that one which does not
respect the tradition of civility that exists in the House of
Commons. I regret that.
1500
When the departing leader came in with his new party I remember
him saying that he would bring a new mentality into the House of
Commons. This is not what he had hoped to achieve. He wanted to
have civility—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while Canadians see the pictures on the evening news of huge
piles of burning animal corpses in the United Kingdom and of
thousands of British sheep being dumped in a huge pit for burial,
the opposition in this place have asked one question on this
issue since it arose, so I guess we have to do their job for
them.
While other countries strive to control the spread of foot and
mouth disease, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what we are doing to
stop this scourge from entering Canada?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is
doing everything it can to stop this disease from entering this
country.
We are banning the import of susceptible animals and animal
products from the European Union and from Argentina. We are
increasing the inspection and surveillance of passengers, baggage
and luggage from these countries. We are implementing
disinfectant shoemats at all the international airports.
We are increasing our investigations on the handling and
disposal of international garbage at airports and seaports. These
precautions and many more will continue until we are—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism did not simply make a mistake. She deliberately
fabricated a story about some phantom letter and about some
phantom cross burning in some phantom city in British Columbia.
She slandered the people of Prince George. She slandered the
people of Kamloops.
How much more shame does the minister have to cause the
government, the House of Commons and the country before the Prime
Minister fires her? Why does he not do it now instead of—
The Speaker: The right hon. the Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, she said she made a mistake and she has apologized. We
on this side of the House accept that people can sometimes make a
mistake and it is acceptable to apologize, which is exactly what
we have done with the minister. She regrets what she said and
she has made her apologies.
The member for Edmonton—Strathcona has done worse. He
fabricated something by having somebody speak on his behalf
during an interview. However, he said he made a mistake. We
said “Fine, sir, you made a mistake”, and we accepted that he
made a mistake. We can—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
* * *
[Translation]
CODE OF ETHICS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the code
of ethics provides that “On appointment to office, and
thereafter, public office holders shall arrange their private
affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or
apparent conflicts of interest from arising but if such a
conflict does arise between the private interests of a public
office holder and the official duties and responsibilities of
that public office holder, the conflict shall be resolved in
favour of the public interest”.
Will the Prime Minister admit that for everyone—parliamentarians
in the House, citizens, and all remotely objective observers—he
has crossed that fine line between the defence of—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
put these shares in trust. Everything was managed by my
trustee, who is also my lawyer. On every discussion she had,
and every decision she had to take, she consulted the ethics
counsellor, who said publicly that he had had the greatest
possible co-operation from the person responsible for taking
decisions without any involvement on my part.
The decisions were taken. There was a debt to be collected.
She collected the maximum she could in the circumstances. I
think that that is very clear: there is no conflict of interest.
[English]
The Speaker: I have notice of a question of privilege
from the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
* * *
1505
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 48(2), I
rise on a question of privilege arising from comments made
yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
In response to a question he had asked the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the hon. member said the following:
While he is at it, the minister referred to a group of members of
parliament who travelled to Sudan. How does the minister feel
about the fact that the tickets for that trip were paid for by
Talisman Energy?
Does the minister feel it is appropriate that two Liberal
colleagues and one Alliance member, one of the Liberals being the
vice-chair of the foreign affairs committee, should be travelling
to Sudan, paid for by Talisman Energy? Is that acceptable to the
minister?
The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has deliberately misled the
House. I have a letter from the Canada Arab Council which I
would like to table in the House today which states unequivocally
that it was the Canada Arab Council that paid for those tickets.
If I could read from that letter, dated March 28, 2001, it
responds to your request, Mr. Speaker. I made a request in
response to the allegations by the hon. member just to reconfirm
what I had known prior to this trip. The letter states:
In response to your request for confirmation of the funding
arrangements covering airfare and accommodation of the recent
Nile River Valley familiarization trip to Egypt and central
Sudan, March 9-10 to 20, 2001 by three federal MPs and a Quebec
MNA, I wish to confirm:
1. The trip was organized and sponsored, including airfare, by
the National Council on Canada Arab Relations in accordance with
its public education mandate.
2. More specifically The National Council on Canada Arab
Relations purchased the air tickets with funds from its general
account.
I will table the letter in the House today. I am demanding that
the hon. member apologize to myself for impugning my reputation
and not dealing with the larger issue of a country that is racked
by civil war and for that member to put his skills toward
advocating a peace plan that will hold the government of Sudan,
the FPLA and Talisman Energy's feet to the fire to develop peace
in that country.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am not sure what the point was of the point of privilege. I am
pleased to have the opportunity to be very clear on precisely
what has taken place in this very sad affair.
The fact of the matter is—
Some hon. members: Apologize.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I trust I will be given
the same courtesy as the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas has the floor.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, at a
press conference held by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton and
the hon. member from Mississauga, the vice-chair of the foreign
affairs committee, those two members confirmed that the travel
within Sudan by the delegation that included the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was paid for by an oil consortium which
included Talisman Energy. That was confirmed directly by those
members.
Furthermore, with respect to the travel and the cost of travel
of the three members from Canada to Sudan, the fact is that
Talisman Energy contributed significant funds to the National
Council on Canada Arab Relations, which in turn were used to fund
the travel of the three members who went to Sudan.
Talisman Energy funded the National Council on Canada Arab
Relations with respect to this matter. Talisman Energy funded
the travel within Sudan. Frankly, it is appalling that hon.
members of this place would accept a trip funded by Talisman
Energy, which has been complicit in some of the most egregious human
rights violations in Sudan.
1510
The Speaker: I think it is clear that there is a
disagreement as to facts in this case. Unless the hon. member
has something that is quite new to introduce into the matter, I
would caution him. I do not want to protract the debate, because
I think that is what we are into here.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas does not get it. He is impugning, as he said in
the House of Commons yesterday, that we knowingly went on this
trip paid for by Talisman oil.
I asked prior to the trip who was paying for it, and it was the
Canada Arab Council. After the trip I asked whether Talisman had
paid for it. I received a document, which I will table in the
House, that clearly states it was the Canada Arab Council and not
Talisman oil that paid for it.
I demand that the member for Burnaby—Douglas stop misleading
the House and apologize to me and my colleagues.
The Speaker: If the hon. member wants to seek leave
of the House to table his letter, he may do so, but I think we
ought to leave the matter there.
It appears there is a disagreement and I do not think it is one
the Chair will be able to resolve. The members have different
views of the facts of the case as is apparent from the
submissions we have heard. If we go on further, we will hear a
lot more.
Does the hon. member wish to seek consent of the House to table
those documents?
Mr. Keith Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca have unanimous consent of the House to table this letter?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Will the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas be
adding anything new to this question of privilege? I do not
really want to hear more on it.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the fundamental question
is: Talisman Energy paid the national council to—
The Speaker: That is a continuing dispute. The hon.
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley on a point of order.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my point
of order. I think the member for Surrey Central has the same
point of order.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, during question period when I was asking a question
of the Prime Minister regarding the racial slurs uttered by the
Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage very clearly and loudly said “What would you know about
Christians?”
First we are dealing with racial slurs and now we are dealing
with religious slurs. I believe all members in the House should
treat all religions equally and respectfully. I am offended by
the minister's comments, and I would ask her to withdraw her
comments and apologize to the House.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. When my colleague
was referring to the junior minister of multiculturalism he was
talking about a pattern we have seen in her behaviour over the
years about Kamloops cross burnings and about behaviour and cross
burnings in Prince George.
I said across the aisle not to forget about their attacks on
Christians during the campaign, a particularly ugly scene that I
am sure she is ashamed of. That spurred the Minister of Canadian
Heritage to hoot across the aisle: what do I know about
Christians.
I guess I know something because I am a Christian. I am
certainly not perfect. I would be the first to admit it. It is
a pattern of this minister and it is shameful.
The Speaker: I can only say that I know it is very
important for all hon. members to treat each other with respect
in the Chamber, both during question period and at all other
times. I urge such a course on all hon. members.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
1515
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-310, an act to amend the Food and
Drugs Act (mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to
amend the Food and Drugs Act with the specific purpose of
legislating mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.
The bill flows from growing concerns about the rapid entry of
genetically modified organisms into the marketplace without the
benefit of long term safety studies and without public
information.
The bill provides for the full public disclosure of all
genetically engineered products and gives consumers the right to
choose.
I would like to credit the work of a former Bloc member for
Louis-Hébert, Madam Hélène Alarie, who worked diligently on this
matter and had actually introduced a similar bill in the last
parliament.
I also want to acknowledge the work of the member for Davenport
who introduced Bill C-287 which also deals with the question of
genetically modified organisms and which has been deemed
votable.
I think all this shows the growing concern in parliament for
this matter.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
NATIONAL HORSE OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, an act to provide for the
recognition of the Canadien horse as the national horse of
Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to reintroduce the
national horse of Canada act, an act to provide for the
recognition of the Canadien horse as the national horse of
Canada.
This sturdy little horse has played a role in Canadian history
since its arrival in New France in 1665 from the stables of Louis
XIV. It has acclimatized to our harsh conditions evolving into a
breed that is strong for its size, intelligent, well-tempered,
resilient and determined. These qualities make it a perfect
symbol for Canada.
Though indispensable to the inhabitants of New France, and later
to the maritimes, Ontario and the west, this horse faced
extinction by the end of the 19th century. Breeders have
restored and developed this breed so that today there are more
than 1,000 Canadien horses in Canada.
The national recognition would increase the profile of this
breed, enhance its marketability and assure its future as the
great Canadian symbol it is.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
STATISTICS ACT
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-312, an act to amend the
Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act (census
records).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce a bill to
allow the public release of the post-1901 census records. The
bill is intended to amend the Statistics Act and the National
Archives of Canada Act to allow the transfer of census records
from Statistics Canada to the National Archives of Canada where
records could be released to the public subject to the Privacy
Act.
The main element of the bill, that census records be keep secret
for 92 years and released to researchers after that time, is the
key recommendation of the expert panel on the access to
historical census records. That panel was established by the
Minister of Industry, and its recommendations were released in
December 2000.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
TREATIES ACT
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bills C-313, an act respecting the negotiation, approval, tabling
and publication of treaties.
1520
She said: Mr. Speaker, the five bills I am introducing today are
intended to remedy some serious shortcomings. Their intent is
to force the government to table in the House all drafts of
international treaties before they are ratified.
As well, their purpose is to force the government to give the
public access to the texts of all international treaties to
which it is a party.
At this time the government is making international commitments
it cannot meet, because the provinces are the ones responsible
for their implementation. My intention is to put in place a
formal process for consulting the provinces.
I wish to attack the democratic deficit and require the
government to hold public consultations before major treaties
are signed, as we do before bills are passed, and to obtain the
assent of the House of Commons.
I salute my former colleague, Daniel Turp, who was the one
behind this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
TABLING OF TREATIES ACT
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-314, an act to provide for the tabling of treaties in the
House of Commons.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I presented all of the five bills during
my first intervention.
I would say that Canadian practices in the negotiation, signing
and ratification of treaties date from another time. In 1931,
under the Statute of Westminster, Canada obtained the right and
power to sign its own treaties. Unfortunately, parliament did
not inherit this power.
It is my intent with this bill to change the situation so that
parliament has the right it should have had since then.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
TREATY APPROVAL ACT
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-315, an act to provide for the conduct of public hearings
and approval by the House of Commons before the ratification of
important treaties.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue we are debating at the
moment. The provinces, as we know, are free to not ratify a
treaty negotiated on their behalf by the government.
The bill I am tabling is intended to require consultation with
the provinces, before a treaty is ratified, as they asked.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
TREATY PUBLICATION ACT
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-316, an act to provide for the publication of treaties.
She said: Mr. Speaker, we had a debate that unfortunately
ended with a vote, the result of which was a disappointment to
us. I am daring to try again. I am convinced that many
members on both sides of the House will agree that parliament
must decide the content of a treaty before it is signed. Prior
to that the public should be consulted through a committee to
be determined by the House.
I am convinced that this would allow us to promote something
extremely important, namely democracy and democratic
transparency.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CONCLUSION OF TREATIES ACT
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-317, an act to provide for consultation with provincial
governments when treaties are negotiated and concluded.
1525
She said: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to ensure that the House
of Commons is consulted. I have neither the order nor the number
of the bills, but one of them seeks to require the House of
Commons to vote on the content.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FUEL PRICE POSTING ACT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-318, an act respecting the posting of fuel
prices by retailers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has to do with the posting of
fuel prices by retailers. Under this enactment, when a fuel
retailer causes a poster, label or sign to be posted indicating
the selling price for a fuel, the price must be indicated
without regard to any taxes imposed on the consumer under an act
of parliament or an act of the legislature of a province.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-319, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(declined vote ballots).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill aims at amending the Canada
Elections Act. It would permit the introduction of a declined
vote ballot. It would allow electors to cast a vote indicating
dissatisfaction with the parties and the candidates listed on the
ballot and yet register a valid vote rather than casting a
spoiled vote. The affected elector would thus be able to
indicate his or her wish to decline to vote for any candidate
standing for election without having to spoil the ballot, as is
the case now.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-320, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act (expenses incurred by care-givers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is again another fine piece of
legislation coming from the riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore that will sweep the nation.
With the pressure on families, with what we call the sandwich
generation looking after their children and elderly parents, this
bill would allow caregivers the opportunity to deduct the
expenses that are incurred in the care of an elderly or infirm
person.
As our population ages, more and more people will require the
benefits of family caregivers. The cost of caring for an infirm
family member can be enormous. Without financial assistance,
many families will simply be unable to provide care.
The bill would help all Canadians to make home care financially
viable. I thank the Canadian Palliative Care Association and the
Canadian Association for the Fifty-Plus for their expression of
support for the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FARM INCOME PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Farm Income
Protection Act (crop damage by gophers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being given a second chance
today on this bill because it is an important bill to farmers,
ranchers and others in western Canada.
The bill entitled “an act to amend the Farm Income Protection
Act (crop damage by gophers), would hopefully lead to restoring
the effective poison that really works to control gophers, but
which costs farmers tens of millions of dollars a year. It is an
important bill for farmers, ranchers and others. I am sure the
House will fully support the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1530
[Translation]
PETITIONS
MCWATTERS MINING INC.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 14, McWatters Mining Inc. closed down operations at its
Sigma-Lamaque complex for an undetermined period.
Workers, their wives and residents of the RCMs of Vallée de
l'Or and Abitibi-Témiscamingue note that this petition contains
139 pages and a total of 2,895 signatures, and that it is an
initiative of members of the McWatters employees survival
committee. In it workers on the Sigma-Lamaque and Kiena
projects are calling for an immediate written and signed
agreement to move highway 117. Work should begin on May 1 of
this year at the latest.
[English]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition on behalf of citizens of the
Peterborough area who are concerned about genetically modified
organisms.
They point out that genetic engineering of food plants and
animals is now expanding at an extraordinary rate. It now
involves the genetic engineering of the most basic building
blocks of life. The long term effects of genetic engineering on
human health and the global ecosystem are completely unknown.
Canadian consumers have a right to know whether foods and seeds
are genetically engineered.
They therefore call upon parliament to persuade the federal
government to introduce clear labelling of seeds and food
products that are genetically engineered so that farmers and
consumers have a clear choice.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from the citizens of the Peterborough area who
want a VIA Rail link re-established between Peterborough and
Toronto.
They point to the environmental benefits of this, including a
great reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. They point to
other environmental benefits. They also point to cost savings to
society in general in terms of car usage, damage to highways and
injuries on the highways. They point out that this new route
would have great economic benefits to Peterborough as a tourist
and educational destination.
They call upon parliament to authorize the re-establishment of a
VIA service between Peterborough and Toronto. I would point out
that the members for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Durham and
Whitby—Ajax believe that this project is on the right track.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am also pleased to present a petition on genetically
engineered foods. It is a good day to do so because there has
been so much activity in the House on this very important matter.
The individuals signing this petition make the astute
observation and wise conclusion that the government has an
obligation to ensure that the food that we eat is safe. They
call upon the government to impose a moratorium on further
releases of genetically engineered crops and foods. They call
for an immediate establishment of long term safety testing of all
genetically engineered crops. They call upon the government to
impose a full and mandatory labelling of all genetically
engineered food.
CENSUS RECORDS
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by
nearly 1,200 Canadians from nine provinces and one territory
concerning the release of census records to genealogists and
historians.
The petition points out that an estimated 7.5 million Canadians
are engaged in the pursuit of their family history and that
census records are a valuable tool for research. The records
have been used in historical research and for the tracing of
genetic diseases, settling of wills and estates.
The petitioners call upon parliament to take whatever steps
necessary to retroactively amend the clauses of the Statistics
Act since 1906 to allow the release to the public after a
reasonable period of time of the post-1901 census records.
1535
KATIMAVIK
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present a petition on behalf of Katimavik, a
non-governmental organization funded by Heritage Canada, which
over the last 20 years has provided tremendously valuable
services to our country while serving as a model to many other
countries in the world.
Katimavik has provided opportunities for more than 24,000 young
Canadians to grow and mature through service to over 2,000
communities across Canada while contributing many millions of
hours of volunteer work valued at over $36.5 million.
For the second consecutive year, Katimavik will have to turn
down nearly 5,000 registered applicants because its present
budget limits the program to fewer than 1,000 participants.
The petitioners call upon parliament to urge the government to
allow, within its means, all young Canadians between 17 and 21
years of age to participate in Katimavik should they so choose.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number
of my constituents who are concerned about a proposed development
that is about to occur adjoining our wonderful High Park which is
in the riding.
Many of the constituents live next to the area where the
proposed development will be built. They are quite concerned
that this proposed development is on lands which have been
designated by the Ontario ministry of natural resources as an
area of natural and scientific interest.
They call on the Parliament of Canada for an environmental
assessment of the proposed development to ensure that it does not
affect the water table nor the water flowing into the Humber
River or Lake Ontario.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest will be pleased
to know that written Questions Nos. 1 and 2 will be answered
today.
.[Text]
Question No. 1—Mr. Greg Thompson:
With regard to the selling of 40 Bell 212 Huey helicopters by
the Department of National Defence through the brokerage services
of Lancaster Aviation Inc.: (a) what was the asking price for
each helicopter; (b) what is the list price for a Bell 212 Huey
helicopter; (c) how many of the helicopters were successfully
sold by Lancaster Aviation Inc.; (d) how much was each
helicopter sold for; (e) what was the value of the cheque paid
to Lancaster Aviation Inc. by the federal government for the
commission on the helicopters' sale; (f) what was the value of
the cheque the Government of Canada paid to Lancaster Aviation
Inc. to cover any expenses Lancaster may have incurred while
trying to find buyers for the helicopters; (g) when this
contract was advertised in the Government Business Opportunities
magazine, how many companies bid on it; and (h) what criteria
made the Lancaster Aviation Inc., bid the best overall proposal?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): (a) No
asking price was set for the helicopters. The price obtained was
dictated by the prevailing market conditions at the time of sale.
Interested parties were invited to submit offers for the
helicopters, which is the standard practice employed by the
department's marketing agent.
(b) According to the Canadian Government catalogue of Materiel,
the list price at the time of acquisition, in 1971-72, for a twin Huey
helicopter was $634,000 Canadian.
(c) 40
(d) The aircraft were sold in lots. Consequently no prices were
assigned to individual aircraft. The helicopters and a large
quantity of spare parts were sold for a total price of $19,752,352
U.S.
(e) Lancaster Aviation was paid a commission to cover its
marketing services. The amount of the commission is not
releasable under the Access to Information Act, section 20(1), as
the disclosure of this information would compromise the
competitive position of the company.
(f) Lancaster Aviation was compensated for sevices rendered
through the payment of a commission. No expenses were separately
chargeable under the terms of the contract.
(g) Bids were received from six of the thirty-eight companies who
had responded to the Letter of Interest advertised on the Open
Bidding Service and has been sent a Request for Proposal.
(h) Lancaster's proposal met the mandatory experience, resource
and financial requirements and they submitted the lowest
responsive bid.
Question No. 2—Mr. Greg Thompson:
With regard to the selling of up to ten Challenger 600-1A11
aircraft by the Department of National Defence through the
brokerage services of Lancaster Aviation Inc.: (a) what is
current market value for a Challenger 600-1A11 airplane; (b)
how many Challengers were sold by Lancaster Aviation Inc.; (c)
what was the selling price of each Challenger; (d) what was the
value of the cheque paid to Lancaster Aviation Inc. by the
federal government for the commission on the Challenger sale;
(e) what was the value of the cheque the Government of Canada
paid to Lancaster Aviation Inc. to cover any expenses Lancaster
may have incurred while trying to find buyers for the airplanes;
(f) when was the Challenger contract advertised in Government
Business Opportunities magazine; (g) how many companies bid
on the Challenger contract when if was advertised in Government
Business Opportunities magazine; (h) how many points did
Lancaster Aviation Inc. receive in each section of the proposal
evaluation and contractor selection criteria for the Challenger
contract; and (i) what criteria made the Lancaster Aviation
Inc. bid the best overall proposal?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
Departments of National Defence and Public Works and Government
Services as follows:
(a) According to market surveys conducted prior to the sale of
the DND Challengers, the value of aircraft of this type ranged
between $3 million U.S. to $8 million U.S. depending upon aircraft
condition and interior configuration.
(b) Eight.
(c) The aircraft were sold as a lot. Consequently no prices were
assigned to individual aircraft. The total selling price for the
lot was $30 million U.S.
(d) Lancaster Aviation Inc. was paid a commission to cover its
marketing services. The amount of the commission is not
releasable under the Access to Information Act, section 20(1),
as the disclosure of this information would compromise the
competitive position of the company.
(e) Lancaster Aviation Inc. was compensated for services rendered
through the payment of a commission. No expenses were separately
chargeable under the terms of the contract.
(f) There is no record of this requirement having been published
in Government Business Opportunities, GBO, magazine. However,
the requirement was widely advertised by means of a Notice of
Proposed Procurement, NPP, for a Letter of Interest which was
published on the Open Bidding Service on October 30, 1996, and
closed on November 20, 1996. The NPP stated that only firms which
responded to the Letter of Interest would be invited to submit a
proposal.
On February 19, 1997, a Request for Proposal, RFP was sent to 38
firms which had expressed an interest in the requirement. The RFP
closed on April 16, 1997, and six bids were received. On June 27,
1997, a contract was awarded to Lancaster Aviation Inc.
(g) Bids were received from six of the thirty-eight companies
that had responded to the Letter of Interest advertised on the
Open Bidding Service and had been sent a RFP.
(h) Five out of the six bids received, including the bid from
Lancaster Aviation Inc., were found to be compliant with the
requirements of the RFP and were awarded full points for the
technical component. The selection of Lancaster Aviation Inc. as
a contractor was made on the basis of it having offered the
lowest price from among these five firms. One of the six bids did
not meet the requirements of the RFP and was disqualified.
(i) Lancaster's proposal met the mandatory experience, resource
and financial requirements and they submitted the lowest
responsive bid.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the parliamentary
secretary but my belief is, based on a conversation we had,
that the questions are complete insofar as a number of them have
been answered. However not all the questions on the order
paper that I submitted have been answered. Does that constitute
a completion of this file? In other words, I am not sure that I
will be completely happy once this is tabled. Do I have a point
of order?
The Speaker: I suggest that the hon. member read the
answers when they are printed in Hansard tomorrow and see
how happy he is. If he has a point of order, we will hear about
it, I am sure. If he does not, I hope that will be the end.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House resumed from March 23 consideration of Bill C-4, an
act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology, as reported (with amendment) from the committee and
of the motions in Group No. 1.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 10 stands
deferred.
1540
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 6
with the following:
That Bill C-4,
in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on
page 6 with the following:
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3 is an amendment to clause 10
which amends the terms held by the directors of the foundation.
As the legislation exists now, directors are appointed to terms
of five years. The motion would ensure that terms are staggered
in such a way that there would be a turnover of directors to
bring in new ideas and prevent stagnation at the director level.
In short, directors would serve staggered terms so we could bring
in new directors. The directors would appoint new directors. We
would continually bring in new ideas from professionals,
university professors and many different segments in Canadian
society.
At the same time, we would state that no more than four terms
would expire in any year. That would mean continuity and that
directors would never be left completely in a void. They would
have some institutional memory of the board and would understand
and have some knowledge of the history of the board. If we did
not do that there would be a risk that they would lose that
institutional memory. That is the reason for this amendment.
I would hope that the House and the members of the Liberal
caucus and the government would support that amendment.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again to Bill C-4 and to
speak to Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I will start by repeating my
position that the bill has real merit. If the government sees
fit to support my amendment in Group No. 3, we may yet have a
chance as a party to support the bill at third reading.
Motions Nos. 3 and 4 are a credible effort by the member for
South Shore to tighten up the bill, at least to some degree.
Even if he were to achieve what he is suggesting in the motions,
the bill would still leave a lot to be desired, but at least it
would be a step in the right direction. We would be willing to
support those two motions.
The whole bill has been created like a sieve, and I suspect that
was deliberate on the part of the minister and the government.
When the minister was before committee he suggested that some of
the vagueness and loose wording in the bill was put there to
allow maximum flexibility in the application of the principles of
the bill.
That was admirable, but I think it is incumbent upon us, as an
opposition to the government and in representing the concerns of
Canadians, to demand some checks and balances in the bill that
would protect value for money when we are spending taxpayer
dollars. The issue of this particular group around the
membership of the foundation and the directors of the foundation
is one of the areas of concern.
1545
The government refers to reasonable expenses and reasonable
costs. To some degree it addresses the issue of remuneration for
directors. It specifically leaves out any mention of
remuneration for the chairman who is appointed by the governor in
council or by the Prime Minister. This is reason to be
concerned.
When we last visited the bill some days ago some members
presented a number of examples of extravagant or ridiculous use
of taxpayer dollars in government operations, boards, foundations
and departments. Some of those examples were a bit extreme but
they did point out why we should be concerned.
The example I would use concerns Mr. Ted Weatherill who was a
government bureaucrat. He was under the same guidelines of
reasonable expenses and reasonable remuneration. He turned in a
bill to taxpayers for $21,000 in three years for his travel
expenses. These things actually happen. It is not a figment of
anybody's imagination. The concern is legitimate when we are
dealing with this matter.
We could fix the bill. We could make it a bill that we could
support in the interests of cleaner air and a cleaner
environment. However we cannot support it because it is custom
made for the abuse of tax dollars. It would not take an awful
lot to fix it.
When we were last debating the bill the minister said that the
criteria and the funding agreement would be tabled in due course
and that if we or other members of the House had a problem with
it we would have an opportunity to bring it forward and discuss
it.
That is quite true, but if there is one thing I have learned in
the seven years I have been here, it is that a member can bring
things to the House and discuss them until he suffers from
premature failure of his vocal chords and nothing will happen.
The fact that we can discuss issues in the House does not mean
that the concerns are ever addressed.
It would be much more prudent to fix the bill before we passed
it and to address our concerns so that we could then support the
bill.
We support this group of motions. They are well intended and
move in the right direction, although they fall far short of
fixing the bill. At least it is an honest effort in the right
direction. When it comes time to vote we will be supporting the
motions.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to the motions in Group No. 2. I spoke last week to
Group No. 1.
Group No. 2 includes Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I will say
the Bloc Quebecois will support these two motions. Despite what
they say, they concern a foundation that already
exists in Quebec along the lines of what the federal government
wants to duplicate.
We can see that with the attitude it displayed earlier this
government is not in any way prepared to have an open mind with
respect to constructive ideas put forward by the opposition, be
it the Alliance, the Bloc, the Conservatives or the NDP.
I said it last week and I reiterate it today: this government is
arrogant and self-important. It suffers from self-importance
because it thinks it has a monopoly on the truth. When people
think they have a monopoly on the truth, that is when they lose
it.
1550
In my opinion, instead of totally recreating what is already
working in the provinces, this government ought to be taking
steps to give back the money it has taken away. Do hon.
members realize where the budget surplus came from? The
government took it out of the pockets of ordinary people, people
earning less than $50,000. As well, it has cut transfer
payments to the provinces for health, education and social
assistance.
Measures in these areas are provincial. This government should
return the money to the provinces, which have good systems
already, so that they may improve them. What does it do
instead? It duplicates what is already in place.
When someone duplicates what others have already done it is
called plagiarism. It is duplicating at the expense of others,
in order to gain visibility by putting up a little flag. That
is not the reason Canadians and Quebecers elected these people.
They elected them to administer public funds that
do not belong to them. This is money that belongs to all
Canadians and all Quebecers.
Obviously, with the election the government wanted to pull one
over on the Canadian Alliance, which was not caught unprepared
last November. Let us face facts. This government no longer
listens to anyone. It is deaf, dumb and blind. It will only go
where it wants to go.
This is not what Canadians and Quebecers expect of the
government. Until further notice, it is Canadians and Quebecers
who provide the government with the money so that it may
administer and pass legislation that will improve their
situation.
Sustainable development is extremely important. We know how
this government toots its horn when it provides any funding for
the environment and sustainable development. I note that
is not what it is attempting to do with this bill. It wants to
ease its conscience and interfere in the jurisdiction of others.
I find the government's approach very offensive. Under the
proposed amendments all appointees would not have to leave at
the end of their terms. They would not all leave at once. These
departures would be spread out over a period of four years to
allow some people to remain on the board of directors so that
the foundation can continue to function.
In addition, under Motion No. 4 members of the board of
directors would be eligible to be reappointed only once.
Enough of appointing one's friends for life. That is not what
Canadians want. They want more transparency, more availability.
They want the people representing them to listen.
We on this side of the House represent many Quebecers and
Canadians. The government thinks that it has a monopoly on the
truth.
The day they begin to understand they
should be listening to Canadians and Quebecers, we will no
longer have to go through what we have been going through in the
last little while in the House of Commons.
Let us just take the example of the young offenders bill. This
is a matter of great interest to Quebecers. It is an area which
works tremendously well in Quebec. All Quebecers are opposed to
the Minister of Justice's bill.
And, what does this government do? It turns a deaf ear and plows
ahead. That is precisely what the Minister of Natural Resources
is doing. He is looking out for no one and he is forging ahead.
One fine day he will meet up with the train, and
trains go fast and stop for no one.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the House is once again considering Bill C-4
at report stage. A number of amendments were suggested
subsequent to the work on the bill in committee.
We are dealing with motions that the Chair has designated as
Group No. 2, specifically Motions Nos. 3 and 4 moved by the
member for South Shore, in an effort to provide more restrictions
in the bill to the terms of office of the directors.
1555
I will deal with those specific points in just a moment, but I
wish to make a couple of observations in response to the hon.
member from the Bloc who has just spoken. Her criticisms of Bill
C-4 were not in terms of what the bill is trying to achieve with
respect to sustainable development.
As I understood them, they were twofold: first, there had not
been ample consultation with all other players and stakeholders,
particularly the provinces and, second, the foundation being
proposed in some way duplicates that which is already in place in
some provinces, most especially the province of Quebec. With the
greatest of respect, neither of those criticisms is valid.
I say this for these reasons. First, Bill C-4 and all other
measures included in Government of Canada action plan 2000 and
identified in the budget of February 2000 with respect to climate
change flow from over two years of the most comprehensive, open,
transparent and inclusive consultation there has ever been on an
environmental and developmental topic.
Members will recall that the Kyoto conference occurred in
December 1997. In a meeting with the Prime Minister not more
than 48 hours after the conclusion of the Kyoto protocol, the
provinces insisted that there be a very thorough process of
consultation. It would specifically include the provinces, the
private sector, non-governmental organizations, the scientific
community, the municipalities, and virtually all Canadians to
fully scope out what the climate change issue was and what the
implications of the Kyoto accord would be.
The Government of Canada agreed with that initiative and in the
spring 1998 the consultation process began. It involved at least
16 different issue tables. It involved over 400 Canadians from
every province and territory. It involved all municipalities
that wanted to be involved, as well as scientific and
non-governmental organizations. It included every dimension of
Canadian life from coast to coast to coast. It was open,
transparent, inclusive and comprehensive.
The idea for the sustainable development technology fund flowed
from that process, which went on for the better part of two
years. It cannot be said that there was not ample consultation.
There was fulsome and very strong consultation which most
definitely included the Government of Quebec and a whole range of
non-governmental interest in the province of Quebec.
The proposed sustainable development technology foundation does
not duplicate work that is already being undertaken by somebody
else in some other jurisdiction. We have been very careful in
defining the role of the new foundation. It is filling a gap in
the innovation chain. It is not duplicating or overlapping with
something that is already there. It is filling a gap that is
problematic at the present time. There is common agreement among
our private sector stakeholders that the gap needs to be filled
and the foundation is the preferred method of filling that gap.
We have continuity from the very early stages of abstract and
pure science through all the intermediate stages where that
science becomes more defined and more applied, to the final end
of the process where it is commercialized and put to work in the
economy.
This new fund and the new foundation will not cause an overlap or
a duplication with something that somebody else is already doing
in some other jurisdiction.
1600
What it does is that it adds new funding to help us all meet the
challenge of sustainable development. All federal, provincial
and territorial ministers of energy and the environment, all
those in the private sector that we consulted, the environmental
organizations and the scientific community, would all agree that
if there is one thing we need from all sources, federal,
provincial and territorial with the private sector, is more money
into the equation to help us find those sustainable development
solutions.
We are not overlapping. We are not duplicating. We are acting
on the basis of ample consultation, bringing another $100 million
to the equation to help solve the challenges of sustainable
development for the future.
When we have an absolute shortage of funding, adding another
$100 million to the overall pot does not constitute overlap or
duplication. It represents a very solid investment toward a
larger solution.
Specifically on the points raised by the member for South Shore
in Motions Nos. 3 and 4, Motion No. 3 is essentially aimed at
staggering terms of office and Motion No. 4 is aimed at limiting
the time in office that any particular director can serve.
While I recognize what the hon. gentleman is trying to
accomplish, I respectfully suggest that the language already in
Bill C-4 provides flexibility for the ongoing board of directors
to function in a most appropriate way and that the restrictions
and the meaning proposed by the member for South Shore would
really be counterproductive.
We cannot determine the value of directors in advance by
arbitrarily saying that they will only have good ideas, that they
will only serve in a proper fashion for one term and that then
they will be burned out and we should cast them aside and get
somebody else.
While it is desirable to have turnover, new blood and new ideas
brought into the equation, it is better to leave Bill C-4 in the
form as it presently stands, which provides flexibility in
dealing with the terms of directors rather than trying to
precisely describe when a particular director must leave office.
Directors who serve well, that bring energy, ideas, vitality and
enthusiasm to their task, ought to continue, and perhaps
indefinitely. They do not run out of ideas because they serve a
certain number of terms or reach a certain age. These people may
want to leave after one term. They may want to continue for
three or four. We need to retain the flexibility to capture
their maximum vitality rather than try to prescribe and limit in
advance.
I simply do not accept the notion that we necessarily have to
say in the legislation that they should be turfed out at a
certain point. The legislation provides flexibility. It
provides for appointment and then the possibility of
reappointment.
Obviously at the time of reappointment an assessment would be
made as to whether the person wants to continue and whether in
the view of the responsible government of the day the person is
making a valuable contribution that ought to be continued. It is
proper to leave it flexible on that basis so that there can be
rejuvenation from time to time and that those who are making
valuable contributions can continue for the long term.
On the point about staggering, I certainly agree with the
objective that we do not want all the directors coming and going
at the same time. Obviously we would have to reinvent the wheel
with each new board of directors every time.
That is a reasonable proposition. My only comment would be that
the staggering of terms is already possible under Bill C-4 as it
is currently drafted. Therefore specifically Motion No. 3 is
unnecessary because the foundation already has the flexibility
that is required to stagger the terms.
* * *
1605
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from question
period. In the course of rather heated debate, the member for
Edmonton North passed a comment on the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism in which she accused her of attacking
Christians.
Whereupon I responded by saying what would she know about
Christians, in reference specifically to the very important
Christian value of forgiveness. I am sorry that members opposite
have tried to construe these comments as being something that
they utterly were not.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate what the Minister of Canadian Heritage
said but she also uttered the same comments when I was asking a
question. It was after three other questions were asked in
between.
I am offended too. I believe the Chamber should respect all
religions equally. I am not a Christian. I am a non-Christian. I
am a Sikh. I expect the hon. minister to address the issue with
respect to when she spoke during my question.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why I
came forward and make no mistake about it. The comment was in
direct response to the member for Edmonton North who stated that
the secretary of state was attacking Christians. I passed the
comment directly to the member for Edmonton North. She is
obviously aware of the context, the context of which was that one
of the basic tenets of Christianity is forgiveness. That was the
context of the comment.
The Speaker: Obviously we have a disagreement and, as I
said earlier, I urge all hon. members to be very respectful to
each other at all times.
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY
ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to establish
a foundation to fund sustainable development technology, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions
in Group No. 2.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is the time to move on. The people of
Surrey Central are pleased to have me participate in the report
stage debate on Motions Nos. 3 and 4 in Group No. 2 concerning
the establishment of a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology.
The government has earmarked $100 million as the amount of
initial funding to be doled out. The sustainable development
technology foundation is to operate at arm's length from the
government, or at least it is supposed to be.
We on this side of the House want to support Bill C-4. However
we want to see some more amendments in the bill. We had
suggestions for the Liberals concerning the bill. Our
suggestions do not have anything to do with the sustainable
development aspects of the bill. The amendments needed do not
have anything to do with the projects related to greenhouse gas
reductions and improving air quality.
Our amendments have to do with Liberal Party arrogance. The
Liberals are proposing to turn the sustainable development
foundation into a Liberal patronage pork barrel. That is what we
are up against. The Liberals are trying to make it so that the
chairperson along with a minority number of directors and members
are appointed by governor in council, which then appoints the
remaining members to complete the 15 person board of directors.
Let me read for the Liberals a simple paragraph from the
Canadian Alliance policy which is dictated by grassroots members.
It states:
We believe that a non-partisan civil service, and independent
judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards
and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore
ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open
and accountable process based on merit.
When will the government stop implementing its system of
disenfranchisement? The patronage practices of the government
are virtually fascist by strict political definition.
How could there be this foundation at arm's length from the
government while the weak Liberal government appoints its board
directly and indirectly? The Canadian Alliance will put a stop
to this sort of thing when we form the government.
1610
There are two motions in Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I
will not read the motions, but we would like to support them
because both of them aim to limit the terms of appointment of the
chairperson and the board of directors appointed by the governor
in council and the staggering of appointments to ensure
continuity on the board. The amendments may not accomplish
exactly what the official opposition wants the government to do,
but it is a step in the right direction.
The amendments moved by the hon. member for South Shore will
tighten the bill and limit the number of terms of the board of
directors. It is a step in the right direction. On behalf of my
constituents and my colleagues I will be willing to support the
two motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
once again to take part in the debate on Bill C-4, which was of
course Bill C-46 in the previous parliament.
There is no doubt that the objectives of the bill, which
establishes a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology, are noble. They are very noble indeed. Sustainable
development is very much a concern among the public. Today, at
noon, I was watching a television program and the topic happened
to be the environment.
People are very concerned about the environment, sustainable
development and the reduction of greenhouse gases. They are also
concerned about air quality.
Today's program also dealt with other environmental issues, but
we know them. We can identify them because they are a permanent
concern among the public. The objectives of the foundation
are noble.
Personally, and this should be kept under wrap, I have my pink side,
with a dash of blue, which pleases my spouse and my children.
I also have a considerable green side, though. The environment
is one of my major concerns. In the case of the foundation for
sustainable technology, however, one cannot help but draw a
parallel with the millennium scholarship foundation.
There were already policies in place in Quebec and this was an
area under Quebec jurisdiction. Still, they doggedly insisted on
creating a federal level foundation. The same thing goes for
this one, the foundation in Bill C-4.
There is considerable expertise in Quebec, yet in the same
broadcast today at noon it was said that Quebec has half the
greenhouse gas emissions most of the others have.
There is therefore expertise
in Quebec. There are technicians. Technology is being
developed. As the minister has said, he considers this new
foundation a kind of fund. He also said that everyone expressed
a need for more money.
Thus, the foundation could to all intents and purposes exist
with its most noble objectives. After the consultation, which
dealt mainly with the technical aspects of sustainable
development, everyone was in agreement. When the time came to
talk money, however, Quebec wanted the funding to be
transferred so that it could carry out implementation or
expansion of the foundation already in place in Quebec, which
moreover constitutes a fund of some $45 million.
If Quebec had its fair share, it could advance still further in
the area of technological development and make of itself an
international showcase of cutting edge technologies, therefore
stepping up its promotion of technology for sustainable
development.
1615
In the group we are currently studying, Group No. 2, there are
two motions the Bloc Quebecois will support. If we
look at the bill, it provides at subclause 10(4):
To all intents and purposes this could go past the time limit
for senators. This is another place the Prime Minister and his
group will appoint a chairperson and members, who will then
appoint other members. It is also up to the Prime Minister to
choose to revoke certain positions. There may be lifetime
appointments.
They talk of new technologies for the environment. They are
running the risk that some who are there just about forever will
lose the spark of the imagination and that the spark of renewal
may not exist as long as one might like in these technologies.
Obviously, in view of the Liberal majority, the government will
proceed with this bill. I am convinced of that. We cannot say
enough that there is overlap again. The bill still gives the
appearance of giving people, friends, contributors, positions
that may last their lifetime. We will therefore support the two
motions in Group No. 2.
We must not let a motion provided for periodic
change go unmentioned. The bill would have done well to provide
for a change of members on a rotational basis in order to ensure
continuous renewal. Thus, limiting a term to five years is a good
thing. If at some point some do not suit the other levels, they
may be removed. At that point they will be in the middle or at
the end of a term, even at the start of it. Motions provided
that, in addition, at the end of a term, a person could remain
another five years.
In fact, because the foundation will be created and will
duplicate what the provinces, including Quebec, are doing and
because we will have to endure that, such an amendment is very
relevant. The Bloc Quebecois will support them, but we will
never lose sight of the fact that we will always oppose the bill
so long as it cannot be improved throughout.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 3
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 4
stands deferred.
1620
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.)
moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 26, be amended by
replacing, in the English version, lines 10 and 11 on page
15 with the following:
“(3) If an auditor is not appointed at the annual
general meeting in any fiscal year, the”
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-4 be
amended by adding after line 7 on page 16 the following new
clause:
“28.1 (1) The accounts and financial transactions of
the Foundation shall be audited by the Auditor General of
Canada at such time as the Auditor General considers
appropriate, and a report of the audit shall be laid before
Parliament.
(2) The Auditor General of Canada has, in connection
with any audit made under subsection (1), all the powers
that the Auditor General has under the Auditor General Act
in connection with the examination of the accounts of
Canada.”
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to explain what Motion No. 8 standing in my
name is all about with respect to Bill C-4.
It is a consequential and technical amendment. The clause was
amended when the bill was before committee. The clause allows
members of the foundation to select an auditor at the annual
meeting of the members, thereby alleviating the need to hold a
separate meeting to appoint the auditor.
The new language of clause 26(1), as amended in committee, is as
follows:
At the first meeting of the members, and in any subsequent fiscal
year at the annual meeting, the members shall appoint an auditor
for.
Upon reviewing the bill and after the committee had finished its
work, it became apparent that a consequential amendment was
required in subclause 26(3) to make subclause 26(3) consistent
with the change made in committee to subclause 26(1).
Accordingly Motion No. 8 now before the House dealing with
subclause 26(3) is that consequential amendment to make sure
subclause 26(3) at report stage is consistent with the change
made during committee hearings to subclause 26(1). It is not a
substantive amendment but obviously the two subclauses have to be
consistent.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I agree
with the minister's amendment. It is an amendment that we intend
to support. However I would say that it is a bit more
substantive and important than maybe the minister would like to
think.
Part of the problem with the legislation is the fact that some
very important issues and a number of smaller amendments like
this one have been overlooked in the drafting of the bill.
Somehow this was overlooked when we were dealing with it at
clause by clause consideration in committee. It is a
housekeeping article but it is a very important housekeeping
article.
What the amendment to clause 26 would effect is the appointment
of an auditor by the members of the foundation. Under the
legislation as it currently reads, if an auditor is not appointed
at the first meeting of the members in a fiscal year the previous
auditor continues in that role. The amendment would change the
clause so that the auditor would be appointed at an annual
general meeting in the fiscal year.
This was an issue that was discussed in committee. It was
suggested that having the auditor appointed at the first meeting
in a fiscal year could delay the actual appointment of that
auditor. With the amendment the auditor is appointed at the
annual general meeting and would be in place to audit the books
for the forthcoming year, which is very typical of most
institutions.
It is an amendment that the PC Party supports since it improves
the accountability of the foundation, something that we have
tried to do with previous amendments to the bill. We will be
supporting the amendment and I congratulate the minister in
bringing it forward at report stage.
1625
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak to Group No. 3 at report stage. The
Canadian Alliance supports the minister's amendment. I share the
opinion of my colleague from South Shore who just spoke. It is
reasonable that the minister would make the amendment.
It is the sixth amendment the minister has made to the bill and
it has not even passed report stage yet. It is one more
indication of how sloppily the bill was drafted. The wording
should be right before it is brought before the House.
Group No. 3 contains my amendment, the only amendment that the
Canadian Alliance is suggesting for the bill. It is an
amendment, if accepted by the government, that would allow us to
support the bill because my amendment would allow access to the
foundation by the Auditor General of Canada.
I raised the issue in committee where we had some discussion.
The minister suggested that what I was asking was unnecessary
because the foundation under the bill has a responsibility to
appoint its own internal auditor to do the auditing of the
foundation's business.
His suggestion that it was adequate to provide value for money
by the foundation was ludicrous because the internal auditor has
the responsibility spelled out in his job description. The
auditor's responsibility is to audit the figures of the
foundation, to see that the columns of figures add up properly
and that the figures presented by the foundation reasonably
reflect the business of the foundation.
The internal auditor in no way has any authority to look at the
appointments of the foundation members, the board members or the
chairman of the foundation, to see if those people chosen by the
government have the qualifications to sit on the foundation or
the board of directors. The internal auditor would have no way
of passing judgment on whether or not groups of people or
projects applying for funding under the foundation met the
criteria for that funding.
There must be some check or balance. The auditor general could
provide that because we do not want a repeat of what we saw in
the billion dollar boondoggle of the human resources department
where taxpayer money was shovelled out to ministers' ridings and
to friends of the government who did not meet the criteria laid
out in the bill. That could happen here again.
What happens if a business acquaintance of the minister or the
Prime Minister, and we have just seen it with the Business
Development Bank of Canada, applies under this foundation for
funding for a project and does not meet the criteria laid out in
the bill? The minister then suggests to the appointed chairman
of the board that he would surely love to see this person's
project qualified. Suddenly there is a change of heart and the
project is qualified and away it goes.
It is fundamentally wrong. It is unethical and it has happened.
I have used two example of how it has happened within the last
couple of years with the government. There is no guard against
that same thing happening with this foundation. That is
unacceptable.
I would love to hear the minister defend how that would be
prevented in the bill. It is a good initiative and we want to
support it. I was sorry to listen to the Bloc Quebecois in
debate going off on a tangent congratulating the new premier,
most of his cabinet and all the rest of it, and talking about
$100 million not being enough money to do what the foundation
does.
The idea has merit. Even the flexibility built into the bill
allows the government to take $100 million and leverage that many
times over through the private sector to do some real good
things.
1630
If it is simply used to reward friends of the Liberal Party
through misuse of the criteria and guidelines, and to shovel
taxpayer money on to those who donate to or support the Liberal
Party, that is unacceptable. We cannot accept that.
We in the Canadian Alliance are just as concerned about global
warming and climate change. We want to do as much about it as we
can. We support the idea of developing technologies that have
the potential to reduce fossil fuel emissions and make the world
a better place for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.
At the same time we have a responsibility to use taxpayer
dollars in a proper, ethical and legal way. I cannot help but
conclude that the bill is deliberately drafted as loosely as
possible to allow the abuses to continue. It is such a mistake.
One of the members in committee suggested that somehow we were
straying from our fundamental philosophy of smaller and less
intrusive government. When I suggested I would rather see the
initiative stay in the Department of Natural Resources than be
hived off to a foundation at arm's length from the government and
out of reach of the auditor general, the member suggested that
was somehow a breach of our basic philosophy.
I cannot see how whether the foundation is within the department
or at arm's length from it would affect the size of government in
any way, except to make government bigger and make eight more
patronage appointments available to the Prime Minister.
Much is wrong with the bill. The safeguards required against
the squandering of taxpayer dollars could be put in the bill by
giving the auditor general access. I have not yet heard, either
in committee or from the minister in the number of times he has
addressed it, why that cannot happen.
I heard him defend the bill loudly last Friday when someone
referred to the foundation as a crown corporation. He was quite
adamant that it was not. Why, then, does he not allow the
auditor general access to it so he can judge whether taxpayers
are getting value for their dollars and whether it is achieving
the wonderful things the minister suggests it can achieve?
It would be in the government's own interest to allow that to
happen. It could then hold it up as such a shining example of an
initiative toward cleaner air and the Kyoto commitment. It
appears it will be much like everything else the government has
said about the climate change initiative in the Kyoto accord. The
government is forever talking about it and essentially doing very
little about it.
The minister referred just minutes ago to his implementation
plan to meet the commitment under the Kyoto accord. That too is
quite ridiculous. If every objective including this one under
action plan 2000 was met, it would take us only one-third of the
way to meeting the government's commitment under the Kyoto
accord.
I am truly disappointed that the government has not been more
responsive to my suggestion. If it would accept it and allow us
to go forward we would love to support the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I will give the floor briefly to the
member for South Shore under the auspices of a point of order. I
will let him make a request and then I will take the matter up
with the House.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. When I replied to the minister's comments it had slipped
my mind that we were in Group No. 3 and that the motion of the
hon. member for Athabasca is included in that grouping as well.
It was my intent to reply to both motions. I replied to the
minister's motion. I should have waited until the minister and
the member for Athabasca both had a chance to have their say and
then I could have raised it and had my say. I would ask the
House to allow me a few minutes to sum up the member's statement.
1635
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous
consent to the hon. member for South Shore?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly thank my colleagues in the House. I will try to be
fairly brief.
Motion No. 9 by the member for Athabasca on the sustainable
development technology act is extremely relevant, important and
substantive to this piece of legislation. The amendment would
allow the auditor general to review the accounts and financial
transactions of the foundation.
Within the realm of the House, the bounds and confines of
parliament and what we strive to do as parliamentarians, surely
that would be second nature to all of us. We should expect the
auditor general to be able to review the account of any
organization, especially one set up with government funds. The
amendment would improve the accountability of the foundation and
it is certainly one the PC Party supports.
It should be noted that the foundation will be established with
$100 million of taxpayer money and may at any time be allotted
more money by the federal government. I support the amendment so
that the auditor general may oversee the use of this public money
and ensure it is used in a way that promotes air quality and
sustainable development.
The amendment was very similar to an amendment I put forward. It
was discussed at committee and had a lot of to and fro from the
government side and the opposition side. Those types of
amendments are necessary because they are an opportunity for the
foundation not only to review how the funds are spent but to
review the projects themselves.
When we are dealing with $100 million of public money and the
possibility of hundreds of millions more being added to the
account, it is only fair that the auditor general be involved.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the people of Surrey
Central to participate in the report stage debate on Group No. 3
concerning the establishment of a foundation to fund sustainable
development technology.
Group No. 3 includes two motions, Motion No. 8 and Motion No. 9.
Motion No. 8 is simply a housekeeping motion. The motion was
moved by the Minister of Natural Resources to change his own
bill. We have seen in the House that many bills tabled by the
government are poorly worded, poorly drafted and very sloppy.
Many times they are not clear, concise, comprehensive or
transparent. Many times what we see is one or two ideas and then
a huge paper load of regulations following the bill.
I am glad the hon. minister has recognized that his bill is
sloppy. He had to amend it six times. This amendment just deals
with translation and is of a housekeeping nature, so we will
support it.
We would ask ministers when they table bills in the House to
look at them carefully. Bills should be properly drafted with
contents where there is some vision of the government's direction
on the issues. We do not want the government to govern the
country through the back door, through the regulations. Let it
govern by the bills which are debated in the House. The
regulations are not debated in the House, so I call them
governance through the back door.
Motion No. 9 also deals with the auditor general's staff. This
is a new clause moved by my hon. colleague from Athabasca, who is
the Canadian Alliance chief critic for natural resources.
1640
According to the hon. member's motion, we are adding two
clauses. They are:
The accounts and financial transactions of the Foundation shall
be audited by the Auditor General of Canada at such time as the
Auditor General considers appropriate, and a report of the audit
shall be laid before Parliament.
It is a beautiful addition. The second clause is:
The Auditor General of Canada has, in connection with any audit
made under subsection (1), all the powers that the Auditor
General has under the Auditor General Act in connection with the
examination of the accounts of Canada.
They are very attractive amendments. I will give a little
background on the necessity of these amendments moved by the hon.
member for Athabasca.
While the foundation provides an annual report each year to
parliament, the foundation appoints its own auditor and has final
approval of its reports before they are made public. While the
legislation sets out rules as to who is eligible to be auditor,
the government refuses to allow the Auditor General of Canada
access to the foundation's books. That is not acceptable.
It is no wonder the government does not want the Office of the
Auditor General of Canada involved. We have seen many scathing
reports, one after another, criticizing the government very
badly. The Liberals have had a difficult ride from the outgoing
auditor general. His recent report was probably his most
scathing indictment yet of the government. Each auditor
general's report on the mismanagement of the Liberal government
is worse than the previous one.
The official opposition wants these issues, the questions of who
will audit the foundation and how appointments will be made to
it, to be dealt with.
We are talking about an initial contribution of $100 million.
Let us look at the multiplier effect when the private sector is
involved. We are talking about a significant contribution of
taxpayer money. We will not allow those two concerns to be swept
under the carpet by the Liberals. That is why we have moved the
two amendments.
The bill, as I said, is well intended. We would support the
bill if this amendment were accepted by the government. However
the current bill seems deliberately vague, perhaps to allow
patronage, nepotism and misspending of taxpayer dollars to creep
into the cracks.
By bringing in the Auditor General of Canada to examine the
foundation's books, taxpayers would have greater protection
against unchecked Liberal spending. I would therefore be very
pleased to support Motion No. 9 because it attempts to restore
accountability and transparency to the whole fund. It would
protect the interests of Canadians and not just friends of the
Liberals.
The Deputy Speaker: Before calling for a resumption of
the debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to
inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St.
John's West, Fisheries; the hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands, Agriculture; the hon. member for
Terrebonne—Blainville, Social Housing; the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, Fisheries.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the third
group, Motion No. 8 deals with a technicality. However, Motion
No. 9, presented by the hon. member for Athabasca, is essential.
It is truly essential and fundamental in the context of the
creation of a foundation.
As we all know, this government has made a habit of creating
organizations, foundations and agencies to ensure that the
auditor general cannot, for all intents and purposes, take a
close look at these institutions or organizations.
1645
We are all familiar with the work of the auditor general, which
involves evaluating the objectives, the actions, the money spent
and even the administrators. In some cases he did evaluate the
performance of administrators and the appointment process of
these same administrators since that process often seems to
have more to do with rewarding an individual than determining
his or her qualifications.
The objective of the government is to ensure that the
auditor general does not have the opportunity to take a close
look at the foundations as such.
If the auditor general had the opportunity to take an indepth
look at the results, as they relate to the budgets or the
objectives—the objectives are always laudable, but sometimes the
means used to achieve them are not the best ones—he could
evaluate the means used by the foundation to achieve its
objectives.
If the auditor general could audit the foundation, it would
alleviate the main concerns of the Bloc Quebecois regarding the
establishment of that foundation. There are six such concerns
and I will mention them briefly.
The division of jurisdictions is one concern of the Bloc
Quebecois. The fact that Quebec already has a fund is another
concern, as is the fact that there is a concentration of powers
within the foundation. The fact that the bill's definitions are
risky, and even imprecise, is another concern. The inequality
between the recommendations of the issues table and the bill, or
the foundation, also concerns the Bloc Quebecois. Another
concern, obviously, is the amounts allotted.
Therefore, any future audit of this foundation would examine the
various points I have just enumerated, almost certainly
justifying Bloc Quebecois concerns.
I will come back briefly to the division of jurisdictions.
It would seem obvious that this is just an underhanded way for
the federal government to intrude once again in the
jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. Unfortunately,
the bill has a very broad scope, leaving the door open to
investing in an area of jurisdiction belonging to a province or
to Quebec.
If an auditor general had an opportunity to audit the entire
foundation, he could also comment on this aspect of
jurisdiction, as it relates to objectives.
What is more, we know that problems often arise, that they are
identified during audits, and that they justify the concerns of
the opposition and of the Bloc Quebecois. Why not take
pre-emptive action?
Furthermore, we asked that the auditor general be invited to
appear before the committee, but this did not happen.
Imagine how beneficial his presence would have been for the
members of the committee who basically want the bill to be as
effective as possible. The auditor general could have given his
views before the fact because he would have been able to examine
the bill and knowledgeably anticipate potential obvious
problems. Unfortunately this did not happen.
Worse yet, the bill ensures that the auditor general will never
be allowed to comment on the foundation.
1650
The answer to that will be that there is an internal auditor. I
have been involved in company auditing. My mandate was to
balance the books, to see whether money had been spent in the
right place, if everything balanced, if everything was okay. This
is fundamental, because without the praiseworthy objectives
relating to the environment this foundation would not exist.
Are the financial actions that will be carried out by this
foundation really in line with its objectives, or do they have
some other aim in mind, one I shall leave to our imagination?
Another point on which the auditor general might voice an
opinion when he audits the foundation is its very pertinence,
compared to what is in place elsewhere.
As I have said, Quebec already has a fund. The creation of this
foundation is surprising, given that Quebec already has its $45
million Fonds d'action pour le développement durable. This
foundation divides its budgetary envelope four ways. I will
spare you the list, but I will point out that the first one is
again subdivided into three areas of concern. One of these is
atmospheric issues in connection with sustainable
development.
Instead of creating a foundation such as this, the federal
government ought to simply transfer the funds to provincial
bodies, including the Quebec foundation, that are already active
in the area set out by the issue table and possess excellent
expertise in this area. This would make it possible for use of
the funding to be tailored to the financial means and priorities
of the provinces and of Quebec.
For all intents and purposes, this would be one of the auditor's
mandates if he were able to audit the foundation. He could say
that the best way of attaining the foundation's objective would,
in a number of cases, be to hand the money over to the
provinces, Quebec included, given their existing expertise and
the fact that they are in some cases far better equipped in
terms of human resources and potential technological resources
for sustainable development. In Quebec this technology has
already been showcased internationally in connection with
sustainable development.
The auditor general could also offer an opinion on the
concentration of powers. The foundation members are nearly all
appointed by the governor in council.
The bill provides that the governor in council on the
recommendation of the minister will appoint seven of the 15
directors of the foundation. However, the other eight directors
will be appointed by the directors who were appointed by the
governor in council.
Finally, the chairperson and all the directors may be removed
for cause by the governor in council. This type of appointment
seems to be a twisted way to allow the federal government to
oversee matters in a field that is the jurisdiction of the
provinces, or Quebec, and to keep control over a body that is
not accountable to parliament.
We can see the relevance of the work of the auditor general in
evaluating the reason for the appointments and the ability and
relevance of some directors who, for all intents and purposes,
are appointed for life, unless the Prime Minister
decides to remove some of them whom he may find unsuitable in
certain instances.
1655
In short, it would have been very relevant to have the auditor
general testify before the Standing Committee on Human
Resources, so that before the fait accompli he could speak on
the fact that he was not invited to audit the foundation and the
fact that there are innumerable problems. In some instances
we are totally in the dark.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 8. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 8 agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The next 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 9
stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The chief government whip has asked
that the vote be deferred until later this day at the end of
government orders.
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House resumed from March 22 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-18, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, when I concluded on this very issue a week or so ago, I
was talking about the equalization formula as it applied to
Alberta a number of years ago and, specifically, the revenues
that were generated by resources in the ground.
There is some concern in Atlantic Canada that these are being
clawed back to the tune of about 80%, which prohibits the growth
of regional economies when the government is basically taking
money away from equalization simply because we are making more
money on our minerals, oil resources and natural gas. I took
exception to that.
I concluded my remarks, just to remind the House and the viewing
public, by stating that from 1957 to 1965 Alberta received
equalization from Ottawa. The energy industry there was in its
early years, just as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the other
Atlantic provinces, including Newfoundland are today. The major
difference was at that time Alberta received 100 cents of every
royalty dollar. Ottawa did not clawback the money through other
programs like equalization which the government is doing today,
which is patently unfair.
1700
It allowed the Government of Alberta to build on success. That
is the only way we will move the poorer provinces along the road
to economic prosperity.
I wish to outline what equalization is supposed to do. The
Constitution Act, 1982, commits the Government of Canada and the
governments of the provinces to promote equal opportunities and
economic development and to provide reasonably comparable levels
of public service across the country with comparable levels of
taxation. That is the basic principle behind equalization.
In addition to the clawback issue, which is a serious issue in
terms of restricting the growth of poorer provinces, the
government has what it calls a capping provision. It caps the
benefits to the provinces or caps the growth in equalization
payments. The cap was a sore point back in 1982 when the
government brought it in. The cap creates a ceiling so that
equalization payments are restricted from growing faster than the
national economy.
That has been a bone of contention going back to 1982. It
restricts the growth or the development of provinces when things
are going well. It is a reverse attitude in terms of what is
being attempted with equalization. The idea is more or less that
they are poor, that they will stay poor, and that we will not do
anything about it.
From an Atlantic Canada perspective, and I can speak with some
authority to the other provinces as well, it is not any different
in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, two provinces that are concerned
about the equalization formula. I will stick to my notes because
they are fairly technical and I do not want to be misinterpreted
in what I am saying.
Imposing a ceiling or a cap on equalization payments interferes
with the ability of the formula to equalize fiscal capacity to
the level of the program's standard and further hampers the
ability of the program to meet its constitutional commitment.
The government told us that it would lift the ceiling. It was
announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. The
Minister of Finance put out a press release on this very subject
matter in terms of lifting the ceiling on equalization on March
15, and we appreciate that.
The lifting of the ceiling for one year only, which the
government has done, will provide only a temporary solution to
the problem. In order to allow the formula to work effectively
the ceiling must be eliminated, not just for one year but in
perpetuity.
The strength of the Canadian economy combined with the design of
the current ceiling provision has put the ceiling in danger of
being breached in the year 2000-01 and in future years. This
would result in the federal government withholding future
equalization transfers to compensate provinces even though these
revenues would be needed in future years when economic growth may
not be as strong.
In summary, it is an ad hoc approach to a problem. It has to be
long term thinking on the part of the federal government if
equalization and the strengthening of the economic position of
the provinces are to be improved. It cannot be done on an ad hoc
basis year by year. We could legitimately accuse the federal
government of doing it on an ad hoc basis. It makes it up as it
goes along but has no long term plan. It has the same approach
on so many other issues. It is a trademark of the government. It
works through the problem but does not plan for the future.
1705
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
was glad to hear the member make reference to the importance of
equalization payments to provinces such as Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Manitoba, where I come from. I was glad to hear
the tone of his comments.
We share the same view in a way, that our equalization system is
probably the single greatest achievement of Canadian federalism.
It does more to inspire the idea of a strong central government
that moves forward together, instead of leaving certain pockets
or certain segments of the country lagging or languishing in a
lack of economic development.
The member limited his remarks to the ceiling that is being
lifted by mutual agreement. The removal of the cap is something
we all welcome. I have heard from ministers of finance of
certain provinces who feel they have being misled somewhat. They
feel that the arrangement being announced now, the removal of the
cap and the reinstatement of the cap in one year. will be at a
level lower than they thought they had agreed to on September 11,
2000.
Would the hon. member comment on that? Has he heard, as I have,
from provincial finance ministers that what they thought they had
agreed to on September 11 and what is being announced today are
two different things and that there is a dissatisfaction with the
announced arrangement?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is truly what has
happened. The formula itself is very complicated. If there were
three economists in the same room they would come out with at
least five or six different points of view because they would
disagree with themselves after examining the documents. What
they sometimes agree to in a meeting with first ministers or
finance ministers is not always the fact after the case has been
examined. That has been obvious in some of these negotiations.
Manitoba, New Brunswick and all others provinces are getting
less than what they thought they would be getting. They are
being penalized for some economic revival within their respective
provinces and that is wrong. We have to build on success, not
discourage success, which is exactly what the formula does.
In my opening remarks a couple of weeks ago I talked about the
difference between Canada and other nations. Canada is a very
generous country. It is recognized as the best country by the
United Nations. We developed that strength or recognition
because of the generosity we have exhibited or have created over
the years, a recognition that when areas of the country need help
we help them. We have always done that.
We do not discount the government in that regard. Over the
years the record was not too bad on equalization, but the fact is
that they were falling far short of the mark as of 1993. Lester
Pearson and Pierre Trudeau would be ashamed of what the Liberals
are doing to the poorer provinces in this fiscal arrangement they
have designed themselves.
We do not want to go back to the old days prior to equalization
because it has always been sensitive. This is what we do and it
has been the right thing to do. An example of a country gone off
the rails in terms of a person either doing it himself or it does
not get done would be the United States. They have poor states
by definition, such as Maine, Mississippi and New Hampshire.
Mississippi has problems with its educational and hospital
standards.
Any country could benefit from a system like ours. We have to
build on the strengths of that system. We cannot be
meanspirited, as the federal government presently is, in terms of
equalization. We have to build on our strengths and the
generosity we have exhibited in Canada for generations. We can
only build on that. We do not want to see it destroyed.
1710
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the equalization bill
before the House at report stage. It is actually a very brief
bill. It removes the $10 billion cap for one year on
equalization to the poorer provinces and allows the cap to go up
by several hundred million dollars. However, after that one
year, it restores the original cap of $10 billion and allows
equalization to increase by the rate of the GDP.
There is some controversy in this regard. The understanding of
some provincial governments was that the cap would be higher than
it would be in future years but that it would go back to what the
original cap was. That is not good enough because of all the
government cutbacks to transfers to the provinces in 1995.
Equalization is perhaps one of the shining symbols of success of
our federation. In 1980-81 I remember Prime Minister Pierre
Trudeau deciding to patriate the constitution. One of the things
that our party pushed for was to enshrine equalization into the
constitution of the country.
It is very interesting that we are probably the only country in
the world that has equalization payments as part of its
constitution. Other countries have ways of trying to equalize
the wealth and potential in their countries through various
government programs. Canada is probably the only country that
has it as a constitutional right for provinces having difficulty
or that fall on very difficult economic times.
I was very proud when that happened. I was on the special joint
committee of the Senate and House of Commons in 1980-81 as the
NDP constitutional spokesperson. We talked a lot about the
question of equalization and the need to have it enshrined in the
constitution: to share the wealth, to be part of the vision that
being Canadian meant those provinces that were better off and
those people who were better off would share some of that wealth
with the poorer provinces.
I come from Saskatchewan which usually is a recipient province
in terms of equalization. There have been times when we have not
been a recipient province of equalization. We will be once again
in the position of not receiving equalization payments in terms
of the economic potential of our province.
The formula is a very complex formula based on the taxing
potential of each of the provinces. The reason my province is
getting closer to not qualifying for equalization is the
increasing revenues from oil and gas, potash and uranium that are
coming in to the province.
As a person from Saskatchewan, if what happened a number of
years ago happens again, I am proud of the fact that we would no
longer receive equalization. I am equally proud of the fact that
we would be participants in terms of the government as a whole in
providing equalization to other provinces in an attempt to make
sure that their services are equal to the services in
Saskatchewan and other provinces.
One way the equalization formula is calculated is by looking at
taxation potential. It is done by eliminating in the formula the
four Atlantic provinces of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and Alberta, which is the province
that has the most potential to raise revenues because of the gas
and oil industry. The other five provinces are used to average
out the potential and the revenues they can collect in trying to
bring the provinces that are not part of that five, excluding
Alberta, up to a national standard.
National standards are also extremely important in terms of
equalizing opportunities for education, health and social
services. It is the Canadian way and the Canadian spirit that if
we live in Newfoundland our opportunities should be as great as
if we live in Alberta.
There is now a new trend in the country which disturbs me a bit.
We have heard about it from Alliance members who have asked in
debate why we should be paying all this equalization. We have
heard complaints from the Alliance that it is a socialistic
program. We have also seen as part of that tendency a move in
the country in the last few years to greater decentralization, a
lessening of the role of the federal government.
1715
We see this in Alberta with Ralph Klein. We see it now in
Ontario with Mike Harris. Of course we see it in spades in
Quebec with the new premier, Bernard Landry. The provincial
Liberal Party in British Columbia is talking about a looser
federation. If that were to happen, we would have four large
provinces talking about more provincial rights and we would have
a looser federation and a weaker federal government.
I am a great believer in a diverse country with a lot of
diversity and flexibility, but I am also a great believer in a
strong federal government that has the resources and the taxation
base to make sure we have national standards in education, in
health and in social programs for each and every single Canadian.
That is part of the Canadian way of life. We will be involved in
a real debate in the next few years about the vision of
federalism or fiscal federalism as we look at this new movement
in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and the province of Quebec.
I am disappointed in Ontario in particular. Over the sweep of
our history as a country Ontario has really led the way in terms
of being a very staunch supporter of a strong central government
in Ottawa. I think of the great contributions of Premier Robarts
and Bill Davis and other Conservative premiers in that province.
There has been a shift in Ontario in the last three or four years
with Mike Harris and that shift coincides with what is happening
in the province of Alberta.
This will be a great debate in the country. It will
unfortunately pit the larger, more populous provinces against the
smaller, weaker provinces in terms of population and economics.
That is a debate we will all have to engage in. I think the
Alliance Party, along with the Bloc Quebecois, will espouse that
vision of a looser, more decentralized Canada.
I think there are still majorities in the House on the Liberal
side, the New Democrat side and in the Conservative Party that
want to make sure we maintain a very strong federal government to
work on behalf of each and every Canadian. That is part of our
way of life. That is part of this federation.
I can remember the great debates over the patriation of the
constitution and the tremendous fights at that time about making
sure that equalization was part of our constitution. We must
have that balance in our federation. Too, I remember at the same
time when the original package came down that there was nothing
in it reinforcing resource revenues and resource rights for the
provinces. The government House leader was in the Ontario
legislature at the time, I think, but he of course remembers the
stories, the struggles and the great divisions in the House among
all political parties about the patriation of the constitution.
In our party we used what leverage we had to make sure the
provinces did have rights guarantees in terms of resource revenue
and natural resources, because we also believe that in a
federation provinces must have strong and protected rights and a
very strong role to play. At the same time we need to have a
strong federal government which also has an extremely important
role to play in the governing of Canada. That is part of the
debate today and it will probably be part of the confederation
debate for many years.
It reminds me of 1968 and 1978 and the election of Pierre
Trudeau. Ed Broadbent said at the time that probably the most
fundamental thing Trudeau did in his first term was to initiate a
department of regional economic expansion, the old DREE
department, in terms of more aid, assistance and development to
many of the provinces like Quebec and Atlantic Canada, northern
Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba. That is part of fiscal
federalism.
We have seen some of those programs diminish over the last few
years, so it is important that we talk about equalization, that
we talk not about rolling back the cap to where it was a year or two
ago but about increasing the cap.
The other point I will make is that in 1995 when the federal
government decided on a lot of cutbacks because of the large
problem in the debt and deficit area, it cut back radically on
the transfers to the provinces. There were radical cuts. I know
there are a lot of Liberals across the way that are embarrassed
by that slash and burn policy of the Minister of Finance and the
Prime Minister. I suppose some even hang their heads in shame.
The government House leader is signalling that his head is in a
noose on this one and he is probably right.
1720
Never in our history have we have seen larger cutbacks by a
federal government. In the fiscal sense the government across
the way—and you, Mr. Speaker, were elected as a Liberal in
northern Ontario—is the most conservative government in Canada's
history. I am speaking here of conservative politics in terms of
the massive cutbacks in government transfers to the provinces in
education, health and social services.
Mr. Pat Martin: Crippling cutbacks.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: They were crippling cutbacks, as my
friend from Winnipeg says. They were major cutbacks. They hurt
most not in Ontario and Alberta but in New Brunswick,
Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Manitoba, the poorer provinces of
the country. The larger provinces with stronger economies could
afford to put more of their own money into social services,
education and health.
I will give the House the example of my own province of
Saskatchewan, where there are slightly over one million people.
In the early nineties it was staggering with tremendous debt and
deficit. Saskatchewan had a deficit that was the largest in the
country next to that of the province of Newfoundland. The
deficit was run up by a premier named Grant Devine who was
probably more right wing than many of the reformers who are in
the House today.
Despite the huge debt and deficit, the Romanow government
decided to backfill every single dollar into the health care
budget that the federal government had cut out. That was
extremely difficult for a province with a huge debt. Fortunately,
Saskatchewan's economy was not doing too badly. The farm economy
was relatively okay compared to now. However, the government had
to introduce taxes right across the board. Income tax went up
and the sales tax went up by 2%. A deficit repayment tax was
implemented in the province.
Provincial officials did that to maintain services. Despite
that, right across the board many rural hospitals had to be
closed because of those tremendous cutbacks that hit
Saskatchewan. I am sure the same was true in the provinces of New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia where hospitals were also closed
largely because of federal cutbacks to the EPF.
These items are all part of the debate. The government has done
a tremendous amount of cutting which has really hurt the cause of
co-operative federalism in Canada. It has really hurt the cause
of having a strong central federal government whose purpose is to
create equality of conditions. It has hurt the cause of the
vision I believed in so strongly when I was in university. It is
the vision of a Lester Pearson or a Tommy Douglas or a Bob
Stanfield, the vision of a co-operative federalism.
Members may remember the vision of co-operative federalism of
Douglas, Pearson and Stanfield back in the sixties and seventies.
That vision was to make sure everybody was brought up rather than
brought down. That was the vision of co-operative federalism,
with sharing, flexibility, strong provinces and a lot of
diversity. It was a vision with the uniqueness of Quebec, two
languages and many cultures, but a strong central government.
We have been sliding away from that vision over the last number
of years. The bill is another small example of that. Sure the
cap goes up this year, but the cap will suddenly be gone and will
go back to what it was for the years that lie ahead.
The economy is not as strong as it was a few months ago, but it
will likely rebound starting in the last part of this year. With
the fiscal surplus we have today, I appeal to the government to
spend more of that money on programs like equalization and
transfers to the provinces for education, health and social
services so we invest in the human infrastructure of Canada and
create a country with genuine equality of conditions regardless
of whether one lives in Fogo Island, Newfoundland, downtown
Edmonton or Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. That has to be the vision
of our country.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, coming
from Saint John, New Brunswick, I have watched what the
government has done to the largest city in the province of New
Brunswick and it tugs at my heart.
1725
We had to close St. Joseph's Hospital in Saint John. It was our
first hospital, the religious hospital. We had to close it
because of the government. On top of that, schools have had to
close. This is a city that is the second largest city in square
mileage in Canada, 126 square miles.
We in Saint John were leaders of the way. We built the frigates
for the military. Look at us today. We do not have a shipyard
open. The shipyard has a lock and bolt on it. Look at our VIA
Rail. We had rail passenger service until this Liberal
government came to power. We no longer have rail passenger
service, and a brand new train station had been built.
All of this comes from the economy. It comes down to transfer
payments for education and social programs. The hon. member did
not mention the homeless. However, I want to tell him that I had
the homeless and their representatives in to see me just last
week. Because of the cutbacks, we have people living on the
streets. Never before did we have that, not until this Liberal
government came into power.
I say we have to increase the equalization payments. We have to
make everyone equal across this country. I ask the hon. member
if he agrees with that.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do. The
fundamental thing about being a social democrat is that one
believes in the equality condition, in sharing, in co-operation,
in fairness and in justice. One role for the government of the
country is to be the instrument of public policy that tries to
equalize conditions.
Of course the homeless situation is one of the consequences of
the cutbacks in terms of transfers to the provinces in social
programs, in housing and in education. I also think of social
housing, which has had massive cutbacks in the last number of
years.
There has been a real shift in the way the government has gone.
If I can risk being political for a moment, I think the member
for Saint John might agree with me that the Reform Party has had
a tremendous impact on the government's agenda, driving it and
dragging it by the nose, as my friend from Winnipeg said, into a
very conservative position of slash, burn and cut back and damn
the consequences.
Where is the old Liberal Party of Lester Pearson, Allan
MacEachen, Walter Gordon, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Marchand and
Gérard Pelletier? Where is that old Liberal Party that was
progressive and innovative and tried to equalize conditions in
this country? Now it is terrified of the Reform Party and the
shadows of the Leader of the Opposition and his predecessor.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member. We talk about
equalization and CHST payments, particularly in relation to
health care and post-secondary education. One of the main
resources we have in the country is our young people. As we see
declining payments to the provinces, we see the costs of
education becoming a greater burden to students and their
families. In the areas where we have failures in the fishery and
failures in relation to shipyards et cetera, the people cannot
afford to pay for the education of the students.
What does the hon. member think about this lack of investment in
our young people and where is this country going if we do not
invest in our most precious resource?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, one of the tragedies of
the cutbacks in transfers to the provinces for health and
education is that they have made education less accessible for
our young people. The future is our young people. Power and
prosperity in the future is based around knowledge and the
knowledge economy and good education and training. We are really
falling back.
Just today I was talking to somebody in the lobby of the House
of Commons who said that tuition fees in American universities
were $40,000 U.S.
If we keep going down this road we will be heading in that
direction. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, sitting in the
chair, would not want to see that happen to our young people.
1730
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if the House would agree to take the recorded
division on this particular item so that it could be referred to
committee in an effort to advance the legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY ACT
The House resumed from March 27 consideration of Bill C-8, an
act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to
amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 5.30 p.m.,
pursuant to order made on Tuesday, March 27, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the
report stage of Bill C-8.
Call in the members.
1750
[Translation]
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1.
1800
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 116
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wood – 141
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure
that my vote is recorded as having voted with my caucus. Perhaps
just one other vote might defeat these Liberals, so I would
appreciate that.
The Speaker: I do not think the hon. member was in his
place when the vote went along so his vote was not counted. Is
there unanimous consent to include his vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: The next time around we will accommodate the
hon. member.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on report
stage Motion No. 1 to report stage Motion No. 14 before we
proceed to Motion No. 8.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 116
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wood – 141
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think again you
would find consent that the members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on this motion, with the Liberal
members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1805
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
members present will vote no and I will add the member for
Langley—Abbotsford to our list.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting no to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP who are
present will be voting yes to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no to
the motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Blaikie
| Comartin
| Desjarlais
| Godin
|
Lill
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
|
Proctor
| Stoffer
| Wasylycia - Leis – 11
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fitzpatrick
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lebel
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paquette
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
|
Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Valeri
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 247
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on Motion No. 12, with the Liberal members
voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
members present will be voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote yes to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP will
be voting yes to the motion.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no to
the motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the
following division: )
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 46
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gallant
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 13.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous
consent that those recorded as voting on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
members present will be voting yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP
present will be voting no to the motion.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the members of the PC
Party vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rajotte
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
| Yelich
– 106
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Godin
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Tirabassi
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wood – 152
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent that those recorded as having voting on
the previous motion be recorded as having voting on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting no, and the
same vote applying to Motions Nos. 10, 11 and 3 to 7.
1810
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present will be voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
support this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present will be voting
yes to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I request that for Motion No. 2
only my vote be recorded as being in favour.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Epp
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
| Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 47
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gallant
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
| Peschisolido
|
Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 211
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 46
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gallant
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 46
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gallant
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 46
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gallant
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 46
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gallant
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 46
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gallant
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 46
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gallant
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 46
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gallant
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 10, 3, 11 and 4 to 7
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you
seek unanimous consent of the House that those who voted on
the previous motions be recorded as voting on this motion with
Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present will be voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting yes to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will be voting yes
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative Party votes no to the motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Yelich – 107
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Baker
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wood – 151
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 lost.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that those who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on the motion now before the House with
Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present will be voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are in
favour of this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will be voting no to
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative Party votes yes to the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fitzpatrick
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lebel
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paquette
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
|
Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Valeri
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 247
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Comartin
| Desjarlais
| Godin
|
Lill
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
|
Proctor
| Stoffer
| Wasylycia - Leis – 11
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
1815
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to establish
a foundation to fund sustainable development technology, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-4.
The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also
applies to Motion No. 6.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent in the House that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now under
consideration, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present will be voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no
to this motion.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no to
this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Bourgeois
| Brien
| Cardin
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Ménard
| Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Venne
– 35
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Burton
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comartin
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Cuzner
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gallant
|
Godfrey
| Godin
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Provenzano
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
|
Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 223
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore
declare Motion No. 6 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find unanimous consent that those who voted on the previous
motion, with the exception of the member for Winnipeg South, be
recorded as voting on this motion now before the House, and, in
the same way, on Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 9, with Liberal members
voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will be voting yes
to the motion.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes yes to
this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 140
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 140
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 140
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 140
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 10, 3, 4 and 9 lost.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in with a further
amendment.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent in the House that the vote on the previous
motion be applied in reverse on the concurrence motion at report
stage.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 140
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Peterson
|
Proulx
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1820
[English]
EDUCATION
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That, in the opinion of
this House, the government should ask the Council of
Ministers of Education in Canada to perform a feasibility
study on the negotiation of a national standardization of
education in Canada that may also be applied to recognize
foreign academic credentials, degrees, diplomas and
professional standing of new immigrants and Canadians in
order to enhance the mobility of individuals between
provinces and territories and contribute to economic,
social and professional progress in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity for
the House to debate my private member's Motion No. 232. My
motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ask the
Council of Ministers of Education in Canada to perform a
feasibility study on the negotiation of a national
standardization of education in Canada that may also be applied
to recognize foreign academic credentials, degrees, diplomas and
professional standing of new immigrants and Canadians in order to
enhance the mobility of individuals between provinces and
territories and contribute to economic, social and professional
progress in Canada.
Education is one of the most important issues on the minds of
Canadians, yet is it not covered under the federal jurisdiction
in Canada. Due to $22.5 million cuts in social transfer payments
to the provinces by the Liberal government since 1993, health and
education have been most critically hurt. The effect in quality
of health care services is quite evident, but the effect in
education services is serious yet latent.
While we suffer from the effect of brain drain, it is essential
that we make the best use of brain gain. Enhancing the mobility
of people by eliminating educational barriers and recognizing
credentials of foreign expatriates could do it.
The motion would not lower Canadian standards in assessing
foreign credentials, nor does it challenge provincial licensing
bodies. Rather it would provide fair and transparent access to
the professional job market and assessment process.
Imagine difficulties faced by new immigrants in settling. They
have to deal with new housing, family care, schooling, the
household, employment, and they have to adjust to a new
environment. The problems are further complicated with
inaccurate expectations by new immigrants, illegal work or
practices in unregulated professions that cause risks to
Canadians. It is also complicated by increased pressure to
licence or certify people in human resource shortages.
I have been talking about this since I came to Canada and, like
everyone else, experienced firsthand the red tape and
bureaucratic nonsense in having my MBA recognized. There was no
reason for that hassle.
I have talked the ears off of every possible person, including
the cabinet ministers. Finally I saw the single sentence in the
throne speech which addressed only part of the concern. I have
raised this issue time and again at public gatherings.
1825
I tabled a similar private member's motion, Motion No. 618 in
the 36th parliament.
There is a need to make the system accessible and streamlined.
There is a need for co-ordination of different levels of
government, regulatory bodies, employers and community
organizations. There is a need to reduce or eliminate those
barriers.
If the House passes this motion, it would help in many ways.
Canada would realize the best use of its labour force,
professional skills, knowledge and ability to support its growing
economy. Canadians would be treated more equally and some
disparities between new and old Canadians would be bridged. The
country's shortage of doctors, nurses and software engineers, for
example, could be alleviated with increased global competition.
It would provide fair and transparent access to the professional
job market and assessment process. Rather than allowing new
immigrants and those migrating from province to province to be
underemployed for too much of their lives, these people would be
able to make immediate contributions to the community. This
would give Canada a competitive advantage in the global market
for meeting manpower needs and enhance the quality of human
resources. It would help in the settlement and integration of
new immigrants in our society. It would help to remove a burden
from our social services.
I had six people in my constituency office who had Ph.D.s. They
were underemployed and doing menial jobs. I remember one person
in particular who had two doctorate degrees in environmental
sciences, one from Germany and the other from India. He had over
20 years experience as a professor and a scientist. He had
written 43 research papers in reputable international journals.
He attended promotional seminars by CIC/HRDC in India to lure
professionals would like to come to Canada. He applied under the
independent category. His degrees fetched him the required
points and he was granted immigration very quickly. He resigned
from his prestigious job as a professor and scientist. However,
once he arrived in Canada he felt like he had been duped of his
degrees which had been recognized by Immigration Canada but were
not recognized by Canadian departments like HRDC, Agriculture
Canada, Health Canada or Environment Canada.
He was almost going crazy while he pumped gas at a gas station
to support his family. Imagine a person with double Ph.D.s
working in a gas station.
Other frustrated professionals have also told me similar
stories. Some were driving cabs, others were working clerical
jobs or even janitorial jobs.
I am not talking about lowering standards. I am talking about
common sense. Why would a degree in science not be recognized
all over the world, for example an M.Sc. in computer science or
math? Two plus two always remains four.
Wherever possible, arrangements should be made for upgrading
degrees or letting the prospective immigrants know in advance of
immigration to Canada of deficiencies in their degrees or courses
required before their credentials would be accepted. My motion
is aimed at pursuing the government on this matter.
Co-ordination with the provinces and territories and
interprovincial co-ordination and standardization of education is
also very important. The development of national standards in
education is desperately needed, not only to allow easy mobility
of people but also to co-op up with globalization and competitive
international job market needs.
The chief commissioner of the B.C. human rights commission in a
letter written to me said:
I agree that the whole process of recognizing the skills and
qualifications of new immigrants needs to be reviewed from a
nation-wide rather than piece-meal perspective and the resultant
standards have to be consistently applied for the result to make
a sensible difference.
The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, CCPE,
recommended that the selection criteria for immigration of
skilled workers be linked to an assessment of the Canadian
equivalency of the applicant's education and a requirement to
seek an assessment from an appropriate Canadian regulatory body
rather than from one of the network of provincial credential
agencies.
1830
The provincial multicultural immigration minister cited the
Association of Professional Engineers and Geo Scientists of B.C.
for progressiveness and innovation and said its recognition of
foreign credentials was another key reason for the profession's
involvement in a pilot project to help foreign trained engineers.
At the same time the minister knows the pilot project does not
lower Canada's standards in assessing foreign credentials to
challenge provincial licensing bodies.
The membership of the Coalition of Regulatory-Related Agencies,
CORRA, has said it has no role in managing Canada's supply of
professionals. Indeed, CORRA is unanimous in its condemnation of
measures that exclude individuals on the basis of measures other
than qualification and ability. It says ignoring occupation as a
factor in selecting immigrants may unintentionally shut off the
flow of information to prospective immigrants regarding Canada's
standards for professional certification, licensing and practice.
CORRA recommends that the government recognize the established
expertise, experience and statutory authority of existing
regulatory and licensing bodies to evaluate the professional
qualifications and credentials of all who seek to be admitted
into Canada's professions.
CORRA maintains that it wants immigrants with professional
qualifications to settle successfully in Canada. As Canada's
regulatory body, it looks forward to playing an important role.
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada maintains
that Canada has not yet developed a government-wide approach to
international education. It says no clear government champion
has yet emerged to move the issue forward. That is a very
important point.
In the United States the Clinton administration issued a
memorandum in support of an international educational strategy to
attract more international students by addressing barriers to
entry such as visa policies, procedures and regulations. Clearly
our government should ensure that Canada is not left behind and
does not suffer from advances made by the U.S. in this regard.
The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, commonly called
CCPE, is looking for ways to streamline existing provincial and
national credential assessment processes for foreign applicants.
In conclusion, the increasing mobility of the labour force and
the need to make educational qualifications portable across
provincial and international borders are factors contributing to
a widespread concern about the procedures for assessing
educational and occupational credentials.
We agree that provincial governments have jurisdiction over
education. Post-secondary institutions are autonomous with
respect to admissions criteria. Provinces also establish the
regulations of some professional trades. Provincial institutions
have the power to determine licensing and certification
requirements, grant recognition of credentials, and set standards
and qualifications.
Certain national associations have certification requirements as
well. However the point is that these bodies follow separate
procedures for assessing credentials in separate provinces. In
Canada there is no central or national agency responsible for
credential assessment. The portability and recognition of skills
and credentials are issues being addressed on a global basis. The
governments of European states are already introducing mechanisms
to make it easier for professionals to move from one country to
another.
The Canadian government should take this work seriously and
assume leadership in this important area. It should keep up with
the rest of the world so that we are not left behind.
1835
This starting point includes the input of all concerned. It
asks the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada, as my
motion states, to perform a feasibility study on the negotiation
of a national standardization of education in Canada that may
also be applied to foreign academic credentials.
I urge all hon. members of the House to kindly look at the
importance of the issue and to support the motion for the sake of
this great country and its people. This is not a partisan issue.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate.
The hon. member across the way is raising real concerns relating
to the recognition of new immigrants credentials and feels
their mobility within the Canadian labour market needs to be
enhanced.
Our government shares those concerns and I must assure the hon.
member that we are taking the matter very seriously. I am
pleased, therefore, to have this opportunity to bring the hon.
member up to speed on what we have done so far to remedy this
sort of problem.
[English]
Let me begin by saying that the government clearly accepts the
importance of facilitating the labour mobility of all Canadians
in general and of easing the integration of new immigrants into
Canada's labour market in particular. I remind the House of the
words of the throne speech:
The government—will work in co-operation with the provinces and
territories to secure better recognition of the foreign
credentials of new Canadians and their more rapid integration
into society.
I also note the words of the Prime Minister in his response to
the Speech from the Throne. He urged provincial governments to
work on their policies with respect to the recognition of foreign
credentials of new Canadians.
[Translation]
I would like to add that in my home province of Quebec there is
a component of the immigration department with the sole
responsibility of assessing the credentials of new immigrants to
Quebec and to Canada in order to determine Canadian
equivalencies. This service is well known and sets an example
for other similar departments across Canada.
Our government has been involved for some time in
improving labour mobility in Canada. The goal of these efforts
has been to ensure that any professional qualifications accepted
in one province or territory will be accepted everywhere else.
We want a labour market in which all Canadians, including new
Canadians, can work and contribute to the development of
Canadian society in the province or territory where they
have chosen to live and work.
I assure the hon. member opposite that the government fully
agrees that we must create new opportunities and increase the
mobility of Canadians who have professional qualifications and
diplomas, including credentials, so that they can travel and
work freely anywhere in Canada. The fact is that we are already
working hard to achieve these important objectives.
[English]
The Minister of Human Resources Development and her officials,
as well as those of other relevant federal ministries, have been
working for some time with their provincial and territorial
counterparts and with professional regulatory bodies. Their goal
is to ensure that any Canadian qualified to work in an occupation
in one province or territory will have access to employment
opportunities in any other Canadian province or territory.
Our goal is to allow any Canadian, including new Canadians who
have skills and certification, to move and have their
qualifications accepted throughout the country. I say to the
House that the government has already gone beyond studying the
matter as the motion proposes. We are already hard at work on
moving ahead.
1840
[Translation]
A major part of that work is done under the internal trade
agreement among federal, provincial and territorial
governments to remove barriers to interprovincial trade and
ensure the free movement of goods, services, manpower and
capital in Canada.
Chapter 7 of that agreement concerns manpower mobility.
It deals with the fact that the professional credentials of many
Canadians, particularly those whose profession or trade is
regulated, are not recognized in the other provinces or
territories because professional regulations vary from one
province or territory to the next, and because it is sometimes
difficult for an individual to have his or her qualifications
recognized and to move from one province to another.
[English]
Under chapter 7 all parties to the agreement on internal trade,
that is all provincial and territorial governments along with the
federal government, are committed to working with regulatory
bodies to eliminate these kinds of barriers to interprovincial
mobility.
Now that we have the agreement in place we are making progress
in using it to eliminate jurisdictional barriers to labour
mobility within Canada. In fact, Canada's social union framework
agreement set a deadline of July 1, 2001, for parties to be in
compliance with the labour provisions of the agreement on
internal trade.
[Translation]
We are co-operating with the provinces and territories through
the forum of labour market ministers to ensure that the
provisions included in Chapter 7 are implemented quickly.
I can assure the hon. member opposite that the government
understands the legitimate concerns that he has raised. In fact
the government is already working hard to appease these
concerns.
The motion also provides that the government should ask the
Council of Ministers of Education to perform a feasibility study
on the negotiation of a national standardization of education in
Canada.
[English]
On this part of the motion I simply remind the House that under
our constitution education is a provincial responsibility. In my
opinion it is unlikely that a federally initiated study on
national standards of education, as the motion proposes, would be
welcomed by the provinces or territories.
Moreover, while it is true that the Council of Ministers of
Education has been formed to bring a co-ordinated national
perspective to educational issues, it is equally true that the
federal government holds no sway over that body. The council is
made up of provincial and territorial representatives and has a
secretariat in Toronto.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada is not officially part of that
organization and cannot run its activities.
In summary, the government is already doing everything it can to
deal with the concerns raised by the hon. member, and since I do
not see the need for such a motion I cannot support it.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is often said that what is clearly thought out is
clearly expressed. I will say clearly that the Bloc Quebecois
opposes the motion by the member for Surrey—Centre.
The motion concerns jurisdiction that, as the member for Laval
West mentioned, is strictly provincial. It is of no concern to
the federal government.
The simple fact of discussing in this House
an area that is not a matter of federal jurisdiction would
usually lead to the dismissal of this motion.
It is rather odd to see a party such as the Canadian Alliance,
which claims to advocate decentralization, especially when it is
in Quebec and is campaigning there or presenting its
politics, come here and present such a motion before the House.
This goes to show that unfortunately what is said is not
always honoured.
1845
I understand very well that the motion is not intended to give
power as such to the government, but at the same time the
wording of it implies an intent to give the federal government a
role in an area that is absolutely not in its jurisdiction,
which all governments of Quebec, regardless of their colour,
political opinion or tendency, sovereignist or federalist, have
defended tooth and nail.
It is important to note that the government of Quebec has always
objected to the Council of Ministers of Education contributing
in any way at all to unifying or standardizing education in
Canada. This has been a constant for years, indeed decades.
This position is part of the Quebec government's perception of
the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada, as
simply a consultative body and nothing more.
By way of example, the government of Quebec did not take part in
the consortium project of the Council of Ministers of Education
intended to establish a common framework for the development of
school curriculum in science. Likewise, it does not take part
in the council's consortium on expectations of post-secondary
education.
The motion of the member for Surrey—Centre has a number of
aspects to it. It deals with the mobility of students linked to
recognition of professional titles, the qualifications of new
immigrants and Canadian citizens and of the worth of diplomas, if we can put
it that way.
First, it is necessary to point out that the recognition of
academic credentials and of the requirements for obtaining them
comes under the authority not of Quebec's department of
education but of the Office des professions et des ordres
professionnels. Members will therefore agree that this makes
the issue rather difficult to examine.
As for student mobility, the government of Quebec is more than
favourable to this principle. Indeed it has made a substantial
effort to improve it.
Furthermore, in 1995 Quebec's department of education reached
an agreement with its Canadian colleagues with respect to a
pan-Canadian protocol on the transferability of university
credits.
As members know, the purpose of this initiative was to encourage
the recognition by post-secondary educational institutions of
first and second year university courses taken in other
institutions in Canada. This also includes the second year of
pre-university college studies in Quebec, also known as CEGEP.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore finds it impossible to support the
motion moved by the member for Surrey Central, essentially for
the reasons having to do with federal interference in one of the
key areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Similarly, in my view and that of the Bloc Quebecois, it is
exceedingly regrettable that the member for Surrey Central is
giving such strong thought to introducing pan-Canadian standards
in this area of jurisdiction which in our opinion should
reflect the reality of the various provinces, including the
distinctive nature of the Quebec people.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on such a very
important subject. I commend the member for Surrey Central for
bringing the matter to the attention of parliament and for
proposing a constructive solution to a longstanding problem that
has been festering in communities right across the country for
many years.
This is an issue about fundamental rights and liberties and
about how we view our immigration and refugee policies. I think
the motion has been put forward in that context. It is not about
jurisdiction or accumulating more power in terms of the federal
government. It is a positive solution for co-ordinating efforts
around this matter and ensuring a measure of co-operation.
We have a problem that all of us have had to deal with time and
again in our respective constituencies.
1850
Who among us has not experienced having to come face to face
with an individual who is trained in a particular profession such
as the medical profession, has a commitment to serve people in a
particular area and has been denied totally the opportunity to
practise, to give of one's talents in that area?
The member for Surrey Central is not exaggerating when he talks
about individuals who are trained as doctors, nurses or engineers
ending up having to eke out a living by driving a taxi or
delivering pizza. That problem has been identified by all of us
through our personal experiences. It is a problem that has been
identified by reputable organizations that work in the field of
immigration and refugee policy.
I would like to quote from the Caledon Institute May 2000
newsletter entitled “The new immigration act: more questions
than answers”. The institute makes some very important
observations. The first one states:
There are many examples of problems arising from short-sighted
immigration policies. One of the most frustrating for many
skilled immigrants now living in this country is the disconnect
between the Canada presented to them while still overseas and the
reality they face upon arrival. In trying to attract immigrants,
Canada actively seeks people with higher education and who are
qualified to practise particular trades and professions. Once
these immigrants arrive, however, many discover that the very
degrees and training that helped them qualify for immigration to
Canada are nearly worthless in the labour market here. Doctors
end up driving taxis, engineers delivering pizzas.
That is a very real problem that we deal with on a regular
basis, and it is at the heart of the motion. It is about how we,
as a country that has a tradition of welcoming people from around
the world and encouraging people to settle here justify policies
and practices that exclude people from practising their chosen
career and engaging in a profession for which they have deep
commitment and actual training and education.
The motion before us offers a way to co-ordinate efforts
nationally to ensure that we address that problem. It is not
about denying or not recognizing the fact that provinces have
jurisdiction in terms of setting credentials and governing
professions. It is about trying to pool our resources, our
knowledge and expertise, and coming to grips with a very
significant problem.
The federal government has time and time again said it has done
all it can do. It has said it is primarily a provincial
responsibility. It is not that simple.
The call today is for the federal government to take up the
challenge and to offer some leadership on this front. A crying
need has been identified by provincial governments to participate
in such a process. Coming from the province of Manitoba where
the problem is very much recognized, attempts have been made to
review the whole system of recognition of foreign credentials. We
would very much appreciate participating on a more collaborative
basis with other provincial governments.
If we leave it as the government would have it with the
provincial governments and offering very little federal
leadership, we would not only do a great disservice to our proud
tradition in terms of immigration and refugee policies, but we as
a country would fail to address some critical shortages in many
professions.
One cannot leave the debate without referencing the very
significant shortages that exist now and are being projected for
the future in terms of doctors and nurses. It would be remiss of
us if we did not recognize the need to pool together our
resources and our efforts to deal with that shortage.
1855
It does not make any sense for us to operate as 13 separate
entities raiding one another to acquire the necessary
professions. It does not do anyone a service. It would make
more sense if we collaborated and found one way to deal with the
shortage that would include recognition of credentials acquired
in other countries around which there seem to be many barriers.
If we do not do that we will not only continue a shortage in the
health care field, which will have dire consequences for
Canadians, but we will also fail to be competitive
internationally in terms of immigration. As it is, we are
already losing out in terms of a very competitive situation
around the world for immigrants. We are not able to compete
because we have policies like the one we are dealing with today
which sends a signal to some countries that their citizens are
not welcome and that their dreams and aspirations will not be
attainable in Canada.
If we want to be competitive in terms of seeking and encouraging
immigrants and refugees to come to the country, we have to do our
part. One of the ways we can do that is by reviewing how we
handle recognition of foreign credentials. Is there a bias in
our system? Do we apply a double standard? Is there a failure
to recognize that sometimes through additional training and
education we can actually find a way for people to practise in
their chosen profession?
We have not done a complete job. The suggestion today is a good
one. Other countries have taken action and the member for Surrey
Central has referenced activities in Europe. For the record, we
met recently with a delegation from Denmark. That country has
put in place a new institution for evaluation of foreign
educational qualifications. That is a positive step because it
recognized a problem and did something about it.
We have to do the same in our country. It is not good enough to
say that we cannot because it is provincial jurisdiction. We
have to avoid getting into the sort of jurisdictional dispute
over something as fundamental as ensuring that the country
continues to be a welcoming place for people from all over the
world. That means we have to work very hard at improving
recognition of foreign credentials. There is no other
alternative.
However we also have to do other things. We are addressing some
of these issues in the debate on Bill C-11 pertaining to
immigration and refugee policies. We have to look at the whole
issue of family reunification because we can be sure that if
individuals come to our country and cannot work in their chosen
profession immediately, it does not help the matter if they
cannot even have family around them or participate fully in our
society.
There are many other solutions to the problem. The contribution
today is an important one and we should take it seriously. I
offer my support in that regard.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
too support the motion put forth by the member for Surrey
Central. The Bloc spokesperson expressed the concern that we
were intruding into provincial jurisdiction. We all know that
education is a provincial responsibility. That does not mean the
federal government should not have a major concern about what is
happening in the country. The provinces know that very well
because, after all, the federal government funds a tremendous
amount of educational costs.
That is not to say we should intrude and interfere. The
resolution is not saying that we should intrude and interfere.
The resolution is asking the House to suggest to the Council of
Canadian Ministers of Education that it initiate the feasibility
study into standardization.
I stress standardization for the right reasons, so that within
the country we have free movement and recognition of the
certificates or degrees individuals hold. Years ago when we
graduated from university we could pick any job at all within our
own province.
Then it got to the point where we moved to a neighbouring
province. Now not only are we moving throughout the country, we
are moving around the world.
1900
What really inhibits this movement of educated people is the
fact that many of these certificates or degrees we hold are
questioned as we move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is
bad enough when we move to another continent or another country,
but when we move to a neighbouring province and our credentials
are questioned, then there are some real concerns.
Canada's Council of Ministers of Education would be an excellent
agency to have studying the feasibility of standardization, not
only within the country but also as it relates to the standards
of other educational institutions, universities, et cetera,
around the world.
I was a member of that association for a four year period when I
was Minister of Education in Newfoundland. I had the opportunity
not only to attend all their meetings but to represent the
association and the country at two world conferences, one in
Geneva, the UNESCO conference, where we discussed Canada's
educational programs in front of nations from all over the world.
I also represented the agency and the country at the meeting of
the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization, of which
Canada is an honorary member. This association has tentacles all
over the world. The secretariat of that association is top-notch.
The association is well aware of the standards of universities
throughout the world. If, and I said if, there are universities
turning out people who are not up to acceptable Canadian
standards it is known beforehand. We should not have to wait
months, or years in some cases, for clarification as to whether
an MBA or Ph.D. or BA is acceptable and equivalent to what we
would get in any of our Canadian universities.
The association has the power and the professionalism to be able
to recommend a general standardization policy, which would
certainly expedite, if not solve, some of the problems we face
right now.
There is absolutely no need for a student coming out of Memorial
University in Newfoundland to be questioned in British Columbia
or vice versa. There is absolutely no need for a student coming
out of McGill to be questioned by some other university. We
should be well aware of the standards. In most cases that is not
a problem. There is a fair amount of recognition of credits.
However, we still have problems within the country. Some years
ago it was a major problem. In my own case, I attended a couple
of universities and had some trouble getting credits recognized
from one to the other. It takes some time.
People who come into the country are facing a severe
disadvantage. Professional people come to Canada, many of whom
we seek out, many of whom we beg to come in, especially when we
have shortages. I am thinking in particular of the medical
field, of doctors, nurses and other professional people, where
there is a major shortage. We beg them to come here and when
they do we complicate their lives by saying we first have to
check their credentials. It takes weeks and months and sometimes
even longer to get clarification and acceptance.
I have been personally involved in a few cases where the
professionals involved were completely and utterly frustrated.
These people come to this new country which is supposed to be one
that opens its arms and welcomes people from all over the world
and treats them royally. In most cases we do and we are proud of
that, but we also have a habit of over-complicating things, and
this is certainly one area where we do that. Doctors have come
to Canada, and to our province in particular, and have waited for
months to get acceptance of their credentials.
1905
An hon. member: Sometimes years.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: The hon. member across the way says
sometimes years and maybe he is correct. However, this is very
unfortunate, in two ways. It is unfortunate for the
professionals coming here and unfortunate for the people in the
areas who are waiting for these professionals, especially medical
professionals.
It is also unfortunate because, as I think the member from the
NDP said, it gives the country a bad name in the sense of not
being accommodating to professionals coming here.
I have absolutely no problem in supporting the suggestion, which
is all it is, that the House ask the Council of Ministers of
Education to look at doing a feasibility study into the
standardization of education, not only as it applies to the
movement from province to province but as it applies to
professional people who come into the country. That is all the
motion does. It is an extremely good motion. It is a timely
motion. Our party certainly supports it.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will leave some time for my
colleague from Surrey Central.
I will start by commending my colleague because, as other
members have mentioned, this is a very important issue. Those
who come to this country, whether they have been here for some
time or are new to this country, are burdened with pressures in
regard to what they thought they could do here and the reality of
what they are faced with when it comes to dealing with this issue
of credentials.
Unfortunately there are real consequences for people's lives.
They have hopes and dreams that are dashed because of the result
of false promises in regard to facing the immigration system
prior to making plans to come here.
I want to touch on the issue very quickly. Like the Bloc
mentioned earlier, I too am very committed to the issue of
respecting provincial jurisdiction. I have been speaking about
it in the House since I came here, but I also believe there are
times when we have to bind together to some extent to deal with
very real problems that the provinces in their jurisdictional
roles cannot deal with on a larger scale. This is definitely one
of them.
That is why I think it is so important to do what the member for
Surrey Central has suggested, to go ahead with a feasibility
study. It does not necessarily encroach on any provincial
jurisdiction. It puts all the facts on the table about how we
could solve the problems and give people the credentials they
deserve when they come to the country so they could become
productive in society, which I think is in the best interests of
all Canadians.
I want to share with members just a couple of key examples of
people in my riding who we dealt with over the course of the last
number of years. One example in particular that comes to mind is
the Aziz couple from Egypt. He is a civil engineer and she is a
medical doctor. They had no problem obtaining the right to
immigrate to Canada but when they arrived they found out the hard
way that they could not get jobs. He was working as a security
guard and she was working in a day care. They were very
discouraged. They had been informed before they received their
permanent visas that they would be able to find work here in
Canada. It was such a waste of talent. These were two people
who could have lived up to their potential in what they were
trained to do but unfortunately had to take substandard jobs.
Some of my colleagues have identified similar situations. We
need to do something about it.
There are a few key things we need to focus on in engaging in
this debate: improved response times for licence or
certification applications from individuals educated abroad;
better pre-immigration information systems; more transparent and
accessible admissions information and processes; and methods of
evaluation for individuals educated abroad that are fair,
appropriate and equivalent to those required of applicants
educated in Canada.
1910
There is another case we need to talk about with respect to the
issue of credentials. It is simply the way we can streamline the
immigration system. This is definitely something that we can
raise in this debate
There is no doubt that it gives us a chance not only to talk
about standardizing the education and credential system in a way
that is positive for all Canadians, but also how we can
streamline the immigration process so that people coming to the
country can get the visas they are hoping to get in a shorter
period of time, that they can be processed in a way that is
efficient, and that they are not left waiting for years upon
years with nothing to do because they are not getting the proper
documentation.
I was helping two other people in my riding, a couple from South
Africa. Their names were Charl and Johanna du Toit. Charl was a
computer expert who got a work permit to work for Saddle Systems,
a computer company in my riding. They applied for landed status
through the Canadian visa station in Buffalo.
They initiated the application in the spring of 1997. By April
1998 they still did not have their papers. The big problem was
that Johanna was not allowed to work. It was driving her spouse
crazy and they almost feared that she would have to go back to
South Africa.
The problem of evaluating the credentials of foreign people
coming to Canada with whatever degrees they may have not only
causes stress when they have to deal with the waiting process,
but in my experience I have seen that at times it also causes
disunity in families.
There have also been cases of brothers, sisters and other family
members waiting for their relatives who have already been
accredited and come here to find meaningful work. Because of the
problems they have once they come here, their family members are
left lingering in their own countries wondering when they will
get permission. They are left on waiting lists here for long
periods before they can become meaningful parts of society.
I will leave one key point in the minds of all my colleagues. I
know members from other parties have commended the member for
Surrey Central on his initiative. It is important that we do
something in this place to initiate a process so we can evaluate
the credentials, foreign degrees, or whatever they might be, so
that people can become productive parts of society.
If we do a study to enhance that idea and push it forward, I
think all Canadians would be better for it. New Canadians coming
to the country would feel especially welcome. This is something
that all members of the House would like to see happen.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank all the members who participated in the
debate, particularly the hon. member for Laval East; the hon.
member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, my friend; the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre; the hon. member for St. John's
West, the former education minister of Newfoundland; and my hon.
colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona.
I also thank all other members who gave me moral support on the
issue. I thank those numerous organizations and individuals that
have contacted my office, written letters and extended their
support for this motion.
Education is an important issue. It has been one of the top
issues in national polls for quite some time. It is a
non-partisan issue.
Unfortunately in Canada we allow brain drain, but when it comes
to brain gain we are weak. We do not take advantage of talent
and human resources. We do not let our human resources be
productive the way they can be.
1915
In fact I will go a step further. When new immigrants arrive
here, their education and credentials are not recognized. It
becomes torture for most immigrants to be underproductive or
underemployed in their lives. It is a punishment for them to
come to this country and remain underemployed.
When we look at the whole situation, it is a 911 call to address
the issue. The House has the responsibility to address this
issue even though some members mentioned that it is a provincial
issue. We are not stepping on any provincial toes on the issue.
I would not mind if, in due course, we made some constitutional
changes to address this serious issue so that we could make
better use of our human resources and develop our human capital.
We may have to make some constitutional changes because of a
changing world, changes in globalization and in the international
development of standards, particularly in education.
We may have to do that one day, but today I am not stepping on
any toes. I am simply asking the Council of Ministers of
Education, Canada to conduct a feasibility study for negotiating
a national standardization of education and to recognize foreign
degrees. We are not talking about lowering standards or about
giving up anything. We are talking raising the standards.
The developed countries of the world are talking about
international standards, whereas we do not even have national
standards in education. The government has a confrontational
strategy with the provinces, which is why we have the
interprovincial trade barriers. This is the time to move
forward. It is the time to have national standards. It is the
time to eliminate those barriers which restrict our progress.
I have talked to many people on this issue. The intelligentsia,
the think tanks, the regulatory bodies, the professional
non-government organizations and academia all support the motion.
The human rights commissioners even say that we should have
national standards.
I will quote one of my friends who said “I am a proud Canadian,
but it hurts me the most when my qualifications have different
values or recognition in different provinces or different parts
of the country.”
In sharing the responsibility dispute, we are losing the
opportunity to make the best use of our human resources. I would
urge all members of the House to help streamline and co-ordinate
education and recognize degrees and credentials. In that spirit,
I will ask the hon. members to give unanimous consent to make
this motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent to make the motion votable?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. Since
the motion has not been made a votable item, it is dropped from
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
SOCIAL HOUSING
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have to say how much I appreciate being allowed to speak in the
House today, because the problem of social housing is especially
important to me.
As we know, in the red book written for last November's election
campaign the Liberal Party promised Canadian taxpayers the
following:
A new Liberal government will work with our provincial partners
to create the Affordable Rental Program (ARP), a cost-shared
capital grants program to help stimulate the creation of more
affordable rental housing, both private and non-profit. Under
this initiative, we expect to see the construction of 60,000 to
120,000 new rental units over four years.
1920
The government provided for an investment of
$680 million in this program.
By including the notion of affordable housing rather than
social housing the government is hinting at the worst case
scenarios. We suspect the government of wanting primarily to
finance private companies so they would build new housing not
reserved for people in need.
We believe that the government's intentions are laudable, but
its actions dubious. Social housing has been completely ignored
since 1994.
This is one of the main reasons for the disastrous state of
social housing right now. Because it is not interested in the
representations made by citizens, organizations and associations
helping those who need adequate housing, the Liberal government
is contributing to the rising poverty rate and to the
helplessness of couples and single people for whom adequate
housing is a real financial burden.
I wonder if the minister realizes that the proportion of tenant
households that spend at least half their income on rent has
increased by 43% in Canada. There are currently 833,000 people
in that group. In Quebec the number has increased by 41% to
reach 274,000.
A study was done by FRAPRU in preparation for the World March
of Women. That study showed that poverty is a tragic social
problem that is increasingly affecting women.
In Quebec over one-quarter of tenant households in which a
woman is the main wage earner spend more than half of their
income on rent. It is extremely difficult for them to balance
their budget, particularly if these women have young children.
On February 27, I asked the minister if he was going to change
the commitments made during the election campaign to ensure
that the federal government really does its share in the area of
social housing, as it is being asked by women's groups.
First, the minister did not answer my question. Second, his
reply was ambiguous. The minister talks about affordable
housing, rental housing and housing for the needy, but I wonder
if he knows what social housing is all about. I would appreciate
an answer.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada, through Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, helps address the housing needs of all Canadians,
including women. Let me highlight some of those initiatives.
In total, the Government of Canada currently spends
approximately $1.9 billion annually to address the housing needs
of low income Canadians. This includes ongoing support for some
640,000 lower income households that receive assistance to reduce
their housing costs or improve their housing conditions. Many of
the residents of this housing are women led in lone parent
families and older women. As well, this funding is used to
provide housing on reserves.
In December 1999, the Government of Canada announced $753
million for its strategy to address homelessness. As part of the
strategy, CMHC will spend an additional $268 million on programs
designed to repair, improve and expand the supply of housing for
low income people, including those at risk of homelessness.
As well, an additional $43 million was allocated to the shelter
enhancement program which provides emergency shelter for women
and children and youth who are victims of violence.
In the last federal budget, a number of new housing measures
were announced by the government. Affordable housing is an
eligible investment under the $2.05 billion municipal
infrastructure program, and the GST rebate was introduced for
newly constructed programs.
There are a number of issues. I thank the member for her
question and would like to reaffirm to her that the Government of
Canada continues to work in the best interests of all Canadians
to ensure affordable housing.
1925
AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on March 2 I questioned the
government's ability to provide agriculture solutions for
Canadian farmers, and that question remains unanswered.
Last week we learned that the government had no solution for
short term farm aid when it refused to vote for additional
funding. Over the years we have seen a lack of coherent
agriculture policy, which has culminated in the AIDA program, a
program that is complicated. It has taken accountants and AIDA
employees many hours to put the program together and we still
have a lack of ability to deal with the program and to understand
it.
AIDA is a program that has been slow. People have waited up to
18 months for their payment. It is a program that has been
inefficient. I had an accountant tell me that he thought the
government was probably throwing the applications down a set of
stairs and picking one or two out of the pile. That was as much
sense as he could make out of the government's response to the
applications.
AIDA has also been bureaucratic to the nth degree: new
employees, revisiting files, combining files without consultation
with producers, and demanding clawbacks from farmers up to 18
months later. AIDA has not been a long term solution for farm
families.
I am also concerned that the government is not ready to deal
with or provide a solution to another problem, and that is the
threat of foot and mouth disease.
The Canadian Alliance has grave concerns about the government's
ability to react. This is a viral disease that spreads rapidly
and is highly contagious. It is a viral disease. We know it can
survive and can be transported on clothing. It is deadly to the
cattle industry wherever it has shown up. We must prevent the
disease from coming to Canada. I would like to suggest some ways
of doing that and suggest some things on which the government
could improve.
We would like to see the government immediately initiate an
education program. Travellers who are coming to and from Canada
must have information about the disease. The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency and its employees need to have information on
the disease. People who are working at airports need to
understand the importance of dealing with it. The general public
are calling us constantly and they also need to be educated.
Farmers and ranchers also need to be educated. They need to
understand that they can be part of the solution by being careful
as to who has access to their places and to their herds.
The former Texas agriculture commissioner, Jim Hightower, said
at one time that “there ain't nothing in the middle of the road
but yellow stripes and dead armadillos”. The government needs
to get going. It cannot sit in the middle of the road on this
issue.
There is also the inspection issue. Does the government have
enough staff and field personnel in both the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency and the customs agency to deal with the
problem? The government must increase the number of personnel if
they are needed. Do we have enough sniffer dogs? When we talk
to field people, they say no. We saw a news report this
afternoon with some vets who have been in Britain and they also
say no.
The cost of ensuring that the disease is stamped out is far less
than dealing with it once it gets here. Is the government ready
to act effectively? It is important that it begin to move on
this. It cannot blame the opposition. It needs to make the
right responses. If it makes inadequate or wrong decisions on
this matter, it will cost billions.
I am asking the government if it has a solution for young people
trying to do the right thing. A number of school groups are
cancelling their trips and are facing a loss of their deposits.
I call on the government to treat these young people properly.
What will it do to provide these young people with a solution to
this problem?
Is the government prepared to provide a solution for families
and for young people with regard to the foot and mouth disease
crisis?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to provide some more information on the main estimates to my
colleague from the great riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands and
a colleague who is a very valuable member of our all party
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
I am new at being a parliamentary secretary, but it is very
human that we would make some changes on the road. However, my
colleague tabled his question and then things changed. However,
I know my colleague is very interested in the main estimates
because that is what he questioned the minister on.
As the minister has said on several occasions since the main
estimates were tabled, the budget allocated to farm income has
not been reduced for 2001-02.
On the contrary, we have increased our funding commitments to
farmers. Over the next three years we committed to inject up to
$3.3 billion into farm safety net systems. As well, on March 1
the minister announced additional funding of $500 million, a half
a billion dollars more, which brings the total federal commitment
to $3.8 billion.
1930
The year 2000 was a transition year. The 2000-01 main estimates
of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had to account for both AIDA
and our new program CFIP. This was done in accordance with the
Government of Canada's accounting practices which required
departments to recognize liabilities in the year the decision was
made to incur them. Since CFIP started in the 2000 tax year, the
budget allocated to that year of the program was recorded in the
2000-2001 main estimates.
As I stated before, the Government of Canada is committed and
remains committed to the farmers of this great country.
FISHERIES
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question earlier was for the minister in relation to a request
from Quebec for an allocation of 6,000 metric tonnes of shrimp. I
asked the minister at the time to reject the request in light of
the implications. The answer I was given by the parliamentary
secretary, who will undoubtedly re-answer my question this
evening, was that they would look at it in light of their usual
policies.
That scares me because when I asked the same minister a question
last spring about whether or not he planned to give an allocation
of shrimp to P.E.I., he gave me the same type of answer. The
next day he gave an allocation of 1,500 metric tonnes to Prince
Edward Island.
I have absolutely no problem with giving shrimp to Quebec if
there were extra shrimp to give away. I would not mind giving it
shrimp if it gave us some of their power. I would not mind
giving it shrimp if it gave us back some of our power.
In this case the beneficiaries of any resource, especially the
fishery, should be those closest to it and that is the people
adjacent to it. That is why we talk about the principle of
adjacency.
In this case there are the fish plants. Let us forget about the
buildings. There are workers in the riding that the
parliamentary secretary represents who, since the collapse of the
ground fishery in our province, have been existing on meagre
resources. Shrimp could enhance their employment opportunities.
There are participants in the fishery already. The larger boats
that involved and that started the shrimp fishery in our
province, perhaps the most viable and profitable way of
harvesting shrimp in certain areas, could certainly use more of
the resource to make their efforts viable.
The 65 and under fleet will tell us it is not getting enough
quotas to make it worthwhile gearing up to prosecute the fishery.
We have a number of small plants throughout the province that,
through the moratorium crisis, kept their doors open without one
cent from government. They were the only ones who received no
benefit from NCARP and TAGS. These private operators
stayed, along with
small co-operatives, and kept their operations going on
their own backs. These people have been looking for quotas and
have been rejected.
There are many needs around the province adjacent to the
resource and if there are extra resources that is where they should
go.
We know the shrimp stocks are supposedly in good shape. We know
that next year or the year after there will be undoubtedly an
increased quotas. If that is the case it should go to those who
are already involved to make their operations viable, and then to
the others who are adjacent to the resource and who will benefit
more from it. If there is more above and beyond that then we
have no problems with sharing. However we have to look after
ourselves first, especially in light of what we have gone through
in my province over the last few years.
I hope the member when he stands to answer the question will
recognize that the minister has already made a commitment.
The minister had made a commitment to the union, to the minister
of fisheries in Newfoundland and to the Fisheries Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador that we will not see any new entrants
into the industry until his present policy review has taken
place.
1935
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
raised a question about requests from the province of Quebec for
additional access to northern shrimp, particularly an allocation
of 6,000 tonnes in this year's fishery. He raised his question
against the backdrop of last year's debate over the decision to
provide access to northern shrimp to fisheries interests from
P.E.I.
The allocation of a valuable, abundant common property resource
is always controversial. The issue is likely to be controversial
again in 2001. However in making a decision for 2001 the
minister will be guided, as he was last year, first by science
and second by input from stakeholders.
The scientific advice last year for northern shrimp stock off
the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was very clear. It
indicated that the stock was in good shape with a very high and
stable abundance of shrimp. This advice was considered by
fisheries managers, industry stakeholders and provincial
representatives at the annual northern shrimp advisory committee.
After careful consideration of all views and consistent with the
scientific advice, the minister concluded that a quota of 3,000
tonnes was warranted. This enabled harvesters to take advantage
of the high abundance while it was available. He also concluded
that assignment of some of the increase to non-adjacent fisheries
was warranted.
In conclusion, I say to the hon. member that the minister will
await the recommendations of the report of an independent panel
examining access criteria. That report is expected in June. As
always, consideration for the well-being of the fishery resource,
the need for a sustainable fishery and the principle of fairness
and adjacency will be considered.
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at the end of
February I asked a question in the House of Commons about the
1999 Marshall decision.
In the last week of February the federal government bought
approximately four crab fishing boats in the area of the Acadian
peninsula, which resulted in the layoff of dockhands working on
these boats and threatened approximately some 35 jobs in fish
processing plants for each boat sold.
On the day in question the Minister of the Environment replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the hon. member's misunderstanding
of the situation. The situation is very clearly a voluntary
program where people have the right to sell something that they
own to the government for the purposes that he described.
I think it would be most unfortunate if he wishes to give the
impression that his party would prevent a voluntary sale by a
willing seller to a willing buyer.
Such a response from a minister is incredible. If anyone has
misunderstood, it is the Liberals across the way.
It is unacceptable to come to the Acadian peninsula to sort out
a problem with the aboriginal peoples, because of the
Marshall decision; to want to buy boats at prices of upward of
$2 million; to lay off dockhands, with the result that plant
employees are in danger of losing their jobs; and not to take that
into consideration.
I spoke with a man who telephoned me one evening. He had
already been holed up in his house for two days. He was
crying like a baby because he had lost his job after 28 years of
service for an employer, a fisher, a boat captain. The
fellow did not know how to read or write. He told me that he
was going to lose his house and his car, everything. That is
the problem. The government did not take this into account
when buying up crab fishing licences. It is unacceptable and
inhuman.
The problems of one people cannot be settled by creating a
problem for another people. That is not the way to do things.
The result will be divisions between peoples, quarrels and
battles. It will bring people into the streets. This is
unacceptable.
I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary will give me a
ready-made answer. I do not know what his response will be.
1940
I am calling upon the government to shoulder its
responsibilities for the good of the people in the region I
represent, for the fishers and the plant workers.
Buying a boat or something else on a voluntary basis is
acceptable, but when the government uses the taxpayers' money to
make purchases like this one, putting people out, then I
say the way it was done is unacceptable. No program was put in
place to look after these families who are now suffering because
of the federal government. This is unacceptable.
Once again, therefore, I call upon the government to assume its
responsibilities.
I wrote the minister of fisheries on February 28, and here we are
at March 28 and still no answer.
In our area the people live in fear of what is going to happen,
fear for their future. The newspapers reflect that fear every
day. People are meeting but no solutions are being found.
I will close on this point. I am anxious to hear the
parliamentary secretary's response. I am anxious to see what
the Liberal government will have to say about the mess it has
created in our area and the other mess it is in the process of
stirring up between peoples, between the aboriginal people and
the people of the Acadian peninsula.
[English]
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has
raised a question concerning licence requirements under the
Marshall process.
As part of the response to the Marshall decision in the Supreme
Court of Canada, the government entered into a fisheries access
program on the recommendations of the standing committee and at
the request of the fishing industry.
The program involves the voluntary retirement of existing
commercial fishing licences and/or vessels and gear. The program
facilitates the voluntary retirement of commercial licences and
the issuance of licences to eligible aboriginal groups in a
manner that does not add to the existing fishing effort on the
resource.
The recently announced longer term Marshall process has as one
of its components a continuation of the licence retirement
program. The member has expressed concern over lost jobs for
deckhands and fish plant workers who were displaced when licence
holders retired their licences under the Marshall program.
The government is fully aware of these concerns. Unemployment
is not just an economic issue. It also has very real emotional
impacts for individual people and the communities they live in.
The federal and provincial governments of Canada understand the
implications of losing jobs.
I wish to say before my time expires that the important point is
that in addition to working with other departments, particularly
HRDC, the minister spoke to his counterpart in the New Brunswick
government, the Hon. Paul Robichaud, on the issue of crab and
lobster crew members displaced as a result of licence retirement
under the Marshall program.
As a result, the federal-provincial committee on snow crab crew
members has been established. The committee will meet for the
first time on March 20.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.43 p.m.)