37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 077
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 12, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Industry, Science and Technology
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
1010
| Official Languages
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1015
| MICRO CREDIT ACT
|
| Bill C-385. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-386. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-387. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1020
| CODE OF ETHICS FOR MINISTERS ACT
|
| Bill C-388. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| SHIPBUILDING ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-389. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1025
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Chemical Pesticides
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1030
| National Defence
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Suicide Prevention
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Human Rights
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Private Members' Business
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Motion
|
1035
1040
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Information Commissioner Report
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Private Members' Business
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1045
1050
1055
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1100
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1105
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1110
1115
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1120
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1125
1130
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1135
1140
1145
1150
| Mr. John Bryden |
1155
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Information Commissioner Report—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Private Members' Business
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1200
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1205
1210
| Mr. John Bryden |
1215
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1220
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1225
1230
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1235
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1240
1245
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1250
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1255
| Mr. James Moore |
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1315
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
1320
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Mr. John McKay |
1325
1330
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1335
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1340
1345
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ABDUL GILL
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| GARY NORTON
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1400
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| SENIORS MONTH
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| THE MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1405
| MARYSE CARMICHAEL
|
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GRADUATION
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| WORLD REFUGEE DAY
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1410
| SAINT JOHN ARMY CADET CORPS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| THE MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| CENTRE DE LA NATURE DE LAVAL
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1415
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1420
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1430
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1435
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1440
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1445
| ENERGY
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1450
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CRTC
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
1455
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| RURAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1500
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| AIR TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| NELSON MANDELA
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. John McCallum |
1505
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1510
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1515
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1520
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1525
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1530
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1535
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1540
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1545
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1550
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1555
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Private Members' Business
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1600
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1605
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1630
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1635
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1640
1645
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1650
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1655
1700
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1705
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
1710
1715
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1720
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1725
1730
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1735
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1740
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1745
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
1750
1755
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1800
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1805
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1810
1815
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1820
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1825
1830
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Vote 1—National Defence—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
1835
| Bill S-15—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1840
1845
1850
1855
1900
| Business of the House
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1905
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1910
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1915
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1920
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1925
| The Speaker |
1930
| MAIN ESTIMATES, 2001-02
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Health
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Motion No. 1
|
1935
1940
1945
1950
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1955
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
2000
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. André Bachand |
2005
2010
2015
2020
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
2025
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
2030
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
2035
2040
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2045
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
2050
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
2055
2100
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
2105
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
2110
2115
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
2120
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
2125
2130
| Mr. Peter Adams |
2135
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
2140
2145
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
2150
| Mr. John Williams |
2155
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2200
2230
(Division 134)
| Motion No. 1 agreed to
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Health
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 2
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Health
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 3
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Health
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Health
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Health
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 6
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Finance
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 7
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Parliament
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 9
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Human Resources Development
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Human Resources Development
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 11
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Human Resources Development
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 12
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Human Resource Development
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 13
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Human Resources Development
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 14
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 15
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 16
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 17
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 18
|
| Concurrence in Vote L20—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 19
|
| Concurrence in Vote L25—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 20
|
| Concurrence in Vote L30—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 21
|
| Concurrence in Vote 35—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 22
|
| Concurrence in Vote 40—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 23
|
| Concurrence in Vote 45—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 24
|
| Concurrence in Vote 50—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 25
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 26
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 27
|
| Concurrence in Vote L10—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 28
|
| Concurrence in Vote L15—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 29
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 30
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 31
|
| Concurrence in Vote 30—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 32
|
| Concurrence in Vote 35—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 33
|
| Concurrence in Vote 40—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 34
|
| Concurrence in Vote 45—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 35
|
| Concurrence in Vote 50—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 36
|
| Concurrence in Vote 55—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 37
|
| Concurrence in Vote 60—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 38
|
| Concurrence in Vote 65—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 39
|
| Concurrence in Vote 70—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 40
|
| Concurrence in Vote 75—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 41
|
| Concurrence in Vote 80—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 42
|
| Concurrence in Vote 85—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 43
|
| Concurrence in Vote 90—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 44
|
| Concurrence in Vote 95—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 45
|
| Concurrence in Vote 100—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 46
|
| Concurrence in Vote 105—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 47
|
| Concurrence in Vote 110—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 48
|
| Concurrence in Vote 115—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 49
|
| Concurrence in Vote 120—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 50
|
| Concurrence in Vote 125—Industry
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 51
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 52
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 53
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 54
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Environment
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 55
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Environment
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 56
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Environment
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 57
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Environment
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 58
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 59
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 60
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 61
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 62
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Parliament
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 63
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Parliament
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 64
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 65
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 66
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 67
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 68
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 69
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 70
|
| Concurrence in Vote 30—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 71
|
| Concurrence in Vote 35—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 72
|
| Concurrence in Vote 40—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 73
|
| Concurrence in Vote 45—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 74
|
| Concurrence in Vote 50—Solicitor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 75
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 76
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 77
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 78
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 79
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 80
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 81
|
| Concurrence in Vote 30—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 82
|
| Concurrence in Vote 35—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 83
|
| Concurrence in Vote 40—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 84
|
| Concurrence in Vote 45—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 85
|
| Concurrence in Vote 50—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 86
|
| Concurrence in Vote 55—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 87
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Governor General
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 88
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 89
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 90
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 91
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 92
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 93
|
| Concurrence in Vote 30—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 94
|
| Concurrence in Vote 35—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 95
|
| Concurrence in Vote 40—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 96
|
| Concurrence in Vote 45—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 97
|
| Concurrence in Vote 50—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 98
|
| Concurrence in Vote 55—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 99
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Finance
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 100
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Finance
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 101
|
| Concurrence in Vote L10—Finance
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 102
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Finance
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 103
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Finance
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 104
|
| Concurrence in Vote 30—Finance
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 105
|
| Concurrence in Vote 35—Finance
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 106
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Transport
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 107
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Transport
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 108
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Transport
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 109
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Transport
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 110
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Transport
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 111
|
| Concurrence in Vote 30—Transport
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 112
|
| Concurrence in Vote 35—Transport
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 113
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 114
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 115
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 116
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 117
|
| Concurrence in Vote L30—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 118
|
| Concurrence in Vote L35—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 119
|
| Concurrence in Vote 40—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 120
|
| Concurrence in Vote 45—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 121
|
| Concurrence in Vote 50—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 122
|
| Concurrence in Vote 55—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 123
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 124
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 125
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 126
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 127
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 128
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 129
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 130
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Agriculture and Agri-food
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 131
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Agriculture and Agri-food
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 132
|
| Concurrence in Vote 30—Agriculture and Agri-food
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 133
|
| Concurrence in Vote 35—Agriculture and Agri-food
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 134
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Treasury Board
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 135
|
| Concurrence in Vote 2—Treasury Board
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 136
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Treasury Board
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 137
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Treasury Board
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 138
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Treasury Board
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 139
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Natural Resources
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 140
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Natural Resources
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 141
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Natural Resources
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 142
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Natural Resources
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 143
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Natural Resources
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 144
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Natural Resources
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 145
|
| Concurrence in Vote 30—Natural Resources
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 146
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Veterans Affairs
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 147
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Veterans Affairs
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 148
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Veterans Affairs
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 149
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—National Defence
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 150
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—National Defence
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 151
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—National Defence
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 152
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—National Defence
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 153
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—National Defence
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 154
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Public Works and Government Services
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 155
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Public Works and Government Services
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 156
|
| Concurrence in Vote 10—Public Works and Government Services
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 157
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Public Works and Government Services
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 158
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Public Works and Government Services
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 159
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Public Works and Government Services
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 160
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 161
|
| Concurrence in Vote 5—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 162
|
| Concurrence in Vote L10—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 163
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 164
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 165
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 166
|
| Concurrence in Vote 30—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 167
|
| Concurrence in Vote 35—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 168
|
| Concurrence in Vote 45—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 169
|
| Concurrence in Vote 50—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 170
|
| Concurrence in Vote 55—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 171
|
| Concurrence in Vote 60—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 172
|
| Concurrence in Vote 65—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 173
|
| Concurrence in Vote 70—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 174
|
| Concurrence in Vote 75—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 175
|
| Concurrence in Vote 80—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 176
|
| Concurrence in Vote 85—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 177
|
| Concurrence in Vote 90—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 178
|
| Concurrence in Vote 95—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 179
|
| Concurrence in Vote 100—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 180
|
| Concurrence in Vote 105—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 181
|
| Concurrence in Vote 110—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 182
|
| Concurrence in Vote 115—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 183
|
| Concurrence in Vote 120—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 184
|
| Concurrence in Vote 125—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 185
|
| Concurrence in Vote 130—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 186
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Transport
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 187
|
| Concurrence in Vote 40—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 188
|
| Concurrence in Vote 20—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 189
|
| Concurrence in Vote 25—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 190
|
| Bill C-29. First reading
|
| Bill C-29 Second reading
|
2235
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Third reading
|
(Division 135)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 077
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 12, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
copies of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service 2000 public
report.
* * *
[Translation]
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 three petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the chair of
the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group's 11th annual meeting
with its counterparts in the Diet of Japan held April 30 to May
4.
The 11th biannual consultations were very successful. The
message that Canada is at the forefront of the new economy and is
an important partner for Japan in many areas was well received.
Consultations reinforced the bond which exists between the
Canadian parliamentarians and Diet members. Japan is a friend
and a valuable partner to Canada.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “A Common
Vision”.
The report was produced by our two subcommittees on the status
of persons with disabilities and on children and youth at risk.
It looks at ways of focusing government resources across
departments to meet the needs of children and the disabled. It
makes recommendations on how the government should work
horizontally rather than using the usual vertical silo approach.
The report is a good example of how an all party committee can
work. Our subcommittees are smaller and work more informally
than the parent committee. It makes for more productive
interaction between MPs, between MPS and witnesses and, as this
is a joint report, between committees. I congratulate all
concerned.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled
“Access to Higher Education and Training”. The report is a
follow up to a series of public hearings we held on access and
mobility with respect to training, ranging from apprenticeships
to the professions.
As this is our last report, I would like to thank all members of
the committee, all witnesses who appeared before the committee
this year and, in particular, I would like to thank the staff.
INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report
of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled
“Transparency in the Information Age: The Lobbyists
Registration Act in the 21st Century”.
The committee conducted a statutory review of the Lobbyists
Registration Act and many important ideas emerged from the
hearing. The Internet is changing the way policy is made.
Lobbying aims at all levels of the public service, and government
policy making has changed a great deal in the past decade.
I want to thank the witnesses and the members of the committee.
I also want to thank our clerk, Normand Radford, our researcher,
Geoffrey Kieley, and all the staff for their diligence.
1010
I would also like to table, in both official languages, the
fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and
Technology entitled, “A Canadian Innovation Agenda for the
Twenty-First Century”. This report is the committee's third
report on innovation. Canada's recent record in acquiring
knowledge and producing highly skilled workers has been
impressive.
The committee recommended two general avenues of pursuit:
ensuring that more research and development is done in Canada and
broadening current innovation targets to include indicators of
commercialization and diffusion of Canadian and world research
and development.
In closing, I want to thank all the witnesses, all the members
of the committee and our staff, our clerk, Normand Radford, our
researchers, Dan Shaw and Daniel Brassard, and all the staff for
their diligence in ensuring that we could table this report
today.
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth
report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
I am pleased to table this report, which is an interim one. We
feel it necessary to point out that the bilingual services
provided by Air Canada are of vital importance for Canadian
travellers.
The committee has expressed the wish that, if possible, the
government respond to this report by the end of September, so
that the committee may continue to study this matter when we
resume sitting in September.
[English]
The committee wishes to underline the outstanding collaboration
and support of the people who appeared before the committee and
also of the people who served the committee.
[Translation]
We wish to thank researchers Robert Asselin and Françoise
Coulombe, from the Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library
of Parliament, as well as co-clerks Tonu Onu and Jean-François
Pagé and their support staff for their invaluable contributions,
which have enabled us to table this fifth report this morning.
[English]
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the second
report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
entitled, “The Future Role of the Government in the Grain and
Oilseeds Sector”.
I would like to point out that while agriculture as a whole is
doing well in this country, there are serious concerns in the
grains and oilseeds sector. With that, our committee will be
progressing in the fall to meet with producers to look at our
various areas of Canada and hopefully bring back to the House a
report on that sector.
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 81(7) and (8) I have the honour to
present, in both official languages, the second report of the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on
the plans and priorities of the estimates 2001-02 of the
Department of National Defence. Pursuant to Standing Order 109
the committee requests a government response.
The report takes advantage of recent changes in the standing
orders which gave committees the opportunity to comment on the
future plans and priorities of the departments under their
responsibility.
I have been asked by members of the defence and veterans affairs
committee to note that time constraints prevented us from
commenting on the plans and priorities of the Department of
Veterans Affairs this year. However it is our intention next
year to provide full comment on the plans and priorities of both
departments.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wish to seek unanimous consent for the following motion
regarding the disposition of business over the next couple of
days. I move:
That at 5.15 p.m. on June 13, or when the business of supply in
the present supply period is concluded, whichever is later, any
proceedings before the House shall be interrupted and all
questions necessary to dispose of Government Order, Government
Bills (Commons), Number C-11 and Government Order, Government
Bills (Commons), Number C-24, and Government Order, Government
Business Number 7 shall be put without further debate or
amendment, provided that no division requested thereon may be
deferred and provided that, if the House is not sitting at that
time, a special sitting shall be convened for the purposes of
this Order.
That, during the consideration of the business of supply this
day, if a division is requested on any motion to concur in any
item or items in the Main Estimates, immediately after the taking
of the said division, the questions on all subsequent motions to
concur in any item or items in the Main Estimates shall be deemed
to have been carried on division.
1015
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
MICRO CREDIT ACT
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-385, an act to facilitate micro credit
for self-sufficiency.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this private
member's bill.
The purpose of the bill is to encourage a greater availability
of banking and other financial services to those with low or
unstable incomes, and to increase the availability of credit in
small amounts, up to $5,000, for small entrepreneurial
enterprises.
The bill calls for an annual report to be published by the
Minister of Finance showing the progress in improving micro
credit by the financial institutions that agree to participate.
The institutions that attain a certain level of activity could
describe themselves as being recognized by the government as
micro credit specialists.
This enactment would affect directly low income people for the
purpose of increasing their ability to generate income. These
small loans, made at a reasonable and commercially viable rate of
interest, would enable them to start or expand their own
businesses and to work their way out of poverty with dignity.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-386, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (breaking and entering).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on
behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to reintroduce my
private member's bill that would amend the criminal code to
impose a two year minimum sentence for repeat offenders of break
and enter crime.
Break and enter crime is not only a property offence, it is a
crime against a person. It is a psychologically damaging crime,
often leaving victims feeling personally violated and
traumatized. It has the potential to be a violent crime because
every break and enter is a home invasion.
The bill is a victims' amendment to the criminal code because
the result will be fewer victims brought about by imposing a real
deterrent on professional break and enter criminals.
The bill would also cut out what is the real source of revenue
for career criminals and organized crime by breaking the cycle of
using the proceeds of break and enter crime to finance other
criminal activities.
I welcome the support of my colleagues for this non-partisan
initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-387, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (bail for those charged with violent offences).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the following
private member's bill, an act to amend the criminal code, bail
for those charged with violent offences.
The bill would prevent a person accused of sexual assault with a
weapon, aggravated sexual assault or criminal harassment, who has
been identified by the victim or by a witness to the offence,
from being released on bail. The result would be that the
accused would not be released unless the charge was withdrawn or
the accused was acquitted at the trial. This would be in the
interest of victims.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1020
[Translation]
CODE OF ETHICS FOR MINISTERS ACT
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-388, an act to regulate conflict of
interest situations for ministers and to provide for a code of
ethics for ministers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to regulate
the conduct of ministers with respect to conflicts of interest
during the exercise of their duties and post-employment.
It provides for the introduction of a code of ethics, primarily
based on the conflict of interest and post-employment code for
public office holders and the code of conduct for members of
parliament of the United Kingdom, which would henceforth be part
of Canadian legislation. Any breach could then be the subject of
penalties.
It also provides for the creation of the position of ethics
commissioner, who would report directly to the House of Commons
and who would have the authority to conduct investigations with
respect to the application of the code of ethics and the
provisions of this bill. Moreover, this is a measure which the
Liberal Party of Canada promised to implement in 1993.
Given the troubling events brought to our attention in the murky
Grand-Mère affair, in which the Prime Minister would appear to
have placed himself in a conflict of interest situation by
contacting the president of the Business Development Bank
regarding a loan for the Auberge Grand-Mère, which adjoined the
golf course in which he had apparently previously owned shares,
it appeared important to tighten up the legislative and
regulatory framework guaranteeing the integrity which the public
is entitled to expect from federal cabinet members.
This is what we must do if we are to restore our fellow
citizens' high level of trust in their political institutions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As
my request is on the notice paper today, I would seek unanimous
consent to introduce a bill to promote shipbuilding.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the member have
unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill on
shipbuilding?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING ACT, 2001
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-389, an act to promote
shipbuilding, 2001.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill revives a bill introduced
earlier, which was within an hour's debate of third reading. It
was Bill C-213 intended to promote shipbuilding. This bill is
the same as the previous one, except that an election has been
held in the meantime. I would remind you of the three components
of the bill.
First, it would establishe a program of loans and loan guarantees for
shipbuilding.
Second, it aims to amend the Income Tax Act to improve the tax
treatment of lease financing, which would apply to the area of
ships as well.
Third, it would provide for a refundable tax credit for ships,
oil platform facilities and other things.
I waited until the end of the session to introduce this bill in
the hope that the Minister of Industry would act on his
commitment to introduce measures himself. As it appears he will
not be doing so, I am introducing this bill as insurance.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1025
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
56(1), I move:
That at 5.15 p.m. on June 13, or when the business of supply in
the present supply period is concluded, whichever is later, any
proceedings before the House shall be interrupted and all
questions necessary to dispose of Government Order, Government
Bills (Commons), Number C-11 and Government Order, Government
Bills (Commons), Number C-24, and Government Order, Government
Business Number 7 shall be put without further debate or
amendment, provided that no division requested thereon may be
deferred and provided that, if the House is not sitting at that
time, a special sitting shall be convened for the purposes of
this Order.
That, during the consideration of the business of supply this
day, if a division is requested on any motion to concur in any
item or items in the Main Estimates, immediately after the taking
of the said division, the questions on all subsequent motions to
concur in any item or items in the Main Estimates shall be deemed
to have been carried on division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those members
opposed to the motion will please rise.
And fewer than 25 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Fewer than 25 members
having risen, the motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHEMICAL PESTICIDES
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two
petitions today. The first petition calls for a moratorium on
the cosmetic use of pesticides.
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my second petition deals with abortion.
The wording of this petition is done so carefully and with such
respect for language.
The students, faculty and staff of Redeemer University College,
draw the attention of the House to the following: incidents of
abortion are becoming more and more frequent; each incident of
abortion harms the public; and there would be fewer such
incidents if certain legislative measures were taken.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to enact
legislation protecting the rights of the unborn.
I think the people who compiled that petition should be
congratulated on doing it in a very temperate way showing a great
deal of respect for all people who have different views on the
issue of abortion.
1030
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition on behalf
of many residents of the riding of Winnipeg South Centre and the
city of Winnipeg.
The petitioners call upon parliament to declare that Canada
objects to the United States national missile defence program and
they call upon Canada to play a leadership role in banning of
nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to present a petition today on behalf of my
constituents of the riding of Scarborough Centre.
The petitioners are asking that the Parliament of Canada, under
section 15(1) of the charter of rights and freedoms, uphold the
Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding Robert Latimer.
VIA RAIL
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present thousands of signatures on a petition from
citizens of southwest New Brunswick to the House of Commons.
The petitioners say that since the VIA Rail Atlantic train
linking Halifax and Montreal through southwestern New Brunswick
was a successful service from 1985 until its discontinuance in
1994 with over 66% occupancy and 330 passengers handled per trip,
including 70 at Saint John and 50 at Fredericton Junction in its
last full year of operation in 1993, and that since the scarcity
and price of fossil fuels, along with concerns over health
related air quality issues and global warming mean that air and
private auto options for travel are becoming less attractive,
they request that the House of Commons act through Transport
Canada and the federal crown corporation, VIA Rail, to restore
passenger train service linking Saint John and Fredericton
westward through Sherbrooke to Montreal and east through Moncton
to Halifax.
SUICIDE PREVENTION
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour to present
a petition on suicide prevention. Approximately 3,500 to 4,000
Canadians die each year by suicide. Suicide is the second
leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24. In
comparison to other countries, Canada does not have a national
suicide prevention strategy.
The petitioners in Etobicoke—Lakeshore call upon parliament to
pass legislation to create a national suicide prevention
strategy.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured to present, on behalf of some 30 respondents in my
riding, a petition which decries the possession and the use of
child pornography.
The petitioners urge the government to do everything possible to
stop the blight on our society of child pornography.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of
numerous constituents urging the government to enact legislation
explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care
workers and to prohibit coercion and discrimination against
workers because of their refusal to participate in matters
contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing
penalties for coercion and discrimination.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government will answer Question No. 49 today.
.[Text]
Question No. 49—Mr. Keith Martin:
With regard to the tragic civil conflict in Sudan: (a) has the
Minister of Foreign Affairs developed a comprehensive strategy to
engage the government of Sudan and the Sudan People's
Liberation Army, SPLA, in constructive peace talks; and (b) has
the minister developed a plan to work with the private sector,
NGOs and other shareholders to rewrite the Special Economic
Measures Act, SEMA, in order to provide unambiguous guidelines
for Canadian companies wishing to invest abroad?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): We share the hon. member's concern over
the tragedy of the civil war in Sudan and the terrible suffering
this has brought upon the Sudanese people.
There is clearly a role for Canada to play in the search of a
peace agreement among the warring parties. The government has in
the past offered its good offices to the government of Sudan and
the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Army, SPLA, and will continue
to explore this possibility. However, the problem is less the
absence of a neutral venue than the lack of a genuine willingness
by either party to negotiate in good faith.
Canada has long supported the peace process sponsored by the
intergovernmental authority on development, IGAD, and our efforts
continue to focus on assistance to the IGAD process as a member
of the IGAD partners' forum, IPF. Canada agrees with the IPF
consensus that any new initiative to accelerate a negotiated
settlement must not undermine IGAD and its principal achievement
to date, namely the endorsement by both parties of the only
currently viable basis for a negotiated settlement, the IGAD
declaration of principles. It is important to emphasize that
Canadian action is designed to complement work already underway.
In the press release on Canada's Sudan policy of May 23, 2001,
it was announced that Senator Lois Wilson, Canada's special envoy
for Sudan, will be travelling to the region. She is expected to
meet with high ranking figures in the government of Sudan and the
SPLA, and these discussions should provide us with a better sense
of the opportunities that exist for engaging the two sides in
this conflict.
Regarding the hon. member's query concerning the Special
Economic Measures Act, SEMA, it should be pointed out that in
general the international experience has been that unilateral
sanctions are largely ineffective. Canada's own experience with
sanctions has confirmed that multilateral measures are the most
effective course of action. To amend the SEMA to allow for
unilateral sanctions against Canadian companies abroad would
undermine Canada's longstanding objection to extraterritorial
measures by other countries.
The department continues to work with the private sector, NGOs
and other stakeholders to look beyond sanctions at ways of shaping
Canada's corporate presence abroad, including Sudan. On several
occasions in the past few weeks we have organized large scale
consultations with a range of interested parties to discuss ways
of ensuring a positive international Canadian corporate presence.
The Government of Canada values these exchanges of views and sees
this as part of a permanent process of consultation.
We wish to assure hon. member that Canada remains engaged in the
search for a durable negotiated peace settlement in Sudan and is
pursuing options which provide the best chance for success.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be
instructed to draft, and report to this House no later than
November 1, 2001, changes to the Standing Orders improving
procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business,
including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be
votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Since today is the final
allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will
go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the
supply bill.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill
be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1035
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a
pleasure to rise to address the motion that our party has put
forward, which will hopefully be supported by all members in the
House.
The main intent of the motion is to improve the workings of the
House of Commons. It is also in the best interest of all of us
here, including the government, the opposition and therefore all
Canadians.
Unless we can change the system, we will not change much else.
That means that unless we can improve our procedures and the way
in which we make decisions, we will not really be able to do much
to improve the lot of most Canadians as we deal with legislation
and issues in the House. We need to put in place legislation and
policies and to make changes that make parliament work for all
Canadians.
I would like to refer to a book that we have regarded as the
handbook for the orders and procedures of the House. The first
principle in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms
states:
To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny
of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an
orderly manner; to enable every Member to express opinions within
limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary
waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration
of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being
taken upon sudden impulse.
Everything I say today will be based on that first principle of
parliamentary procedure.
By making this change, we would trigger meaningful debates
across the country on various issues. The change I am referring
to is to amend the standing orders in order to allow all private
members' business items to be votable if a member wishes it to be
that way.
I sincerely believe that one of the problems we face in Canada
is that we, as politicians, and Canadians generally, do not
scratch below the surface on key issues. Many issues are often
left unexamined and this hurts all of us.
In order for democracy to work and to work well we must be well
informed so that we can make decisions intelligently. Many
Canadians may not realize how important the motion is but if they
have ever tried to bring forth an issue through their elected
representatives, they will realize the importance of the motion.
We could play a very effective role in having everyone look more
closely at the issues that affect them greatly and yet in our
current system they are not examined in depth. For democracy to
work effectively, those people making those decisions must
understand the issues, and this change hopefully would do that.
I would like to give a bit of an historical perspective before I
go into the arguments for this because history can really help us
understand why these changes are necessary.
My source of information is from the Library of Parliament. It
is a paper that was prepared by James Robertson for the
subcommittee on private members' business. I cannot go into all
the details that he provided going back to 1867, but as we look
through the report we see that private members' business has not been static.
From 1867 to 1962 the standing orders gave precedence to private
members' business on particular days in each week. However
successive governments found such a distribution inadequate for
the conduct of their own legislative programs and regularly gave
precedence for their own business via special and sessional
orders. What this means is that private members' business used
to dominate the business of the House of Commons, but gradually
that has been eroded.
1040
The agenda in private members' business has taken second place
to what we do. We need to bring more prominence to that issue.
By 1955 government business dominated the agenda of the House and
the standing orders were brought in to protect private members'
business.
In 1962 the House abandoned the allocation of a certain number
of days each session for private members' business and instead
set aside one hour per day for that purpose.
In 1982 the practice of considering private members' business
for one hour on certain days was replaced by a single private
members' day.
In 1983, however, the House reverted to the consideration of
private members' business for one hour per day on Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, with no maximum amount of time on
Mondays and Tuesdays. The omission of this part of the former
rule meant that the amount of time provided for private members'
business actually increased as a result.
Until the late 1950s there were two criteria which determined
the order in which private members' business was considered:
their date of notice and, in the case of bills, their stage in
the legislative process.
Other secondary criteria, whose purpose was to distinguish the
different categories of business from each other, also became
important. For example, in 1910 a higher precedence was accorded
to unopposed private members' notices of motions for the
production of papers while opposed motions of this kind continued
to be considered with other motions until 1961 when they were
given a specific category in the order of business and were
debated on a designated day.
I refer to portions of this report in order to show that private
members' business has not been static. There have been changes
throughout our history.
In 1982 there was a single draw of members' names held at the
start of each session. In the 1970s private members' business
was organized by the government House leader's office. That was
criticized by many members as undue government interference and
eventually the private members' office was established under the
Clerk of the House.
We are back to the same situation now because the tradition has
become such that only bills that receive the consensus of the
private members' business committee are deemed votable. We again
find it almost impossible to bring forth items for debate and a
vote when two or three members of the committee may not wish to
bring them forward. It has become a great source of frustration
for many members of parliament.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER REPORT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just been
advised that the information commissioner's report has been
released. The government has an obligation to table that report
in the House of Commons but for some reason that has not
happened. There has not been an opportunity to bring forward
this very important report.
We have heard in the past from the information commissioner and
his predecessor that there is what appears to be a very nefarious
attempt by the government to become less than transparent. To
not bring forward this report furthers that perception amongst
the public.
I would respectfully suggest that there is an obligation on the
government to table this report so that the House of Commons and
members of parliament will have an opportunity to examine that
important report before the recess.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has
inadvertently stated that a little differently than how he should
have. I agree that any report to have been tabled by the Speaker
should have been tabled by the Speaker, if that is the case, but
I am in no position to confirm or deny it.
However the information commissioner does not work for the
government. If the hon. member wants to change the act and make
that official work for the government, perhaps there would be
some enthusiasm for that, but the information commissioner is an
officer of parliament, not of the government. If the Speaker
wants to table that information, we will be glad to receive it as
well.
* * *
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the review of history and
point out that in 1985 a very significant review called the
McGrath committee tabled its report. It stated:
The House does not attach any great importance to private
members' business as it is now organized. This is evident from
the fact that members are seldom greatly concerned to claim the
priorities they have drawn in the ballot governing the use of
private members' time, and this is largely because private
members' bills and motions rarely come to a vote.
1045
This is a key point we are raising here today. We are asking
that all private members' business be deemed votable if the
private members wish. The committee said that its proposals were
designed to achieve a number of improvements in the way private
members' business is dealt with. I do not have time to go
through them all but there have been many changes since then.
Private members' business has eroded significantly in
importance. It is time to again review what we do and improve
the whole area. We have evolved to the point where minority
rights are not respected. By establishing the custom at the
private members' committee that there be a consensus of committee
members before an item is deemed votable we have again ensured a
tyranny of the majority.
It is in the best interest of the government, the opposition and
all Canadians that we make significant improvements to private
members' business.
Much discussion has taken place in recent years on the topic of
making parliament more effective and democratic. We began this
parliament by saying that we must improve the way we do things in
this place and bring back more democracy. A lot of controversy
has taken place of late concerning pay and benefits for
parliamentarians. My question is this: Why do we not focus more
effort on doing our jobs well? The rest will take care of
itself.
As many members know, I along with many members have had great
concerns that we as MPs lack effectiveness in representing the
people of Canada. Much of that is because of the lack of
democracy in the House and the inability of MPs to speak freely
on issues and vote on the merits of legislation rather than along
party lines.
The motion that all private members' business be votable is
predicated on the assumption that free votes on private members'
business will continue. Much of the debate in the House is
meaningless because MPs do not listen to it. Why? It is because
they are not free to vote based on the arguments presented. They
are told how to vote. Why listen to the pros and cons of the
debate? Why listen to constituents? Why even be here? MPs do
not even have to make the decision. Someone else likely makes it
for them.
Making all private members' business votable would mean that MPs
would need to pay attention. They would need to listen to all
the arguments, put their brains in gear and think carefully about
how to vote because every vote would be a free vote. Every vote
would be theirs and theirs alone.
Making all private members' business votable would be a huge
change in this place. It would probably do more to change the
dynamics of parliament than any other change I could contemplate,
other than of course making all legislation a free vote.
If we want to send a serious signal to the citizens of Canada
that we are here to do a job and do it well to earn our salaries,
this would be one of the best ways to start doing that. What are
some of the consequences I would anticipate if private members'
business were made votable and free votes were to continue? Of
course the role of backbench MPs would suddenly become much more
meaningful.
As it now stands, the Prime Minister and cabinet have all the
means at their disposal to bring forth legislation and put in
place initiatives they wish to promote. However Canadians have
many concerns and issues that are never addressed because there
is no mechanism to do so. We generally pay very little attention
to issues not introduced by the government because we know they
have little or no hope of being passed. This would change
considerably.
Canadians are frustrated that they cannot advance issues through
their elected representatives. With these changes, MPs would be
forced to be better listeners. We would need to listen to our
constituents and listen to debate in parliament. It would become
much more obvious if an MP was not on duty and doing his or her
job.
Another change I anticipate is that MPs who bring forward a bill
or motion would need to do a lot more work in preparing to
introduce it. They would need to do their homework because they
would likely only have one opportunity to put forth the issue in
the life of the parliament, but one opportunity is certainly
better than none.
Another change is that the apathy Canadians have for politics
and for parliament would diminish.
The cynicism so prevalent throughout the land would decline as
they saw and heard us doing our job. There should be a much more
serious attitude to the processes that go into making the laws
and rules we all must live by in this democratic society.
1050
If all private members' business is made votable there would
need to be an assurance that it would then be properly and
effectively advanced, not swept under the table by the government
or the Senate or in any other way.
I come back to where I started, that unless we change the system
we will not change much else. The process is most important. If
we do not bring meaningful democracy to the House we will not be
effective in making the positive and meaningful changes people
look to us to make.
We would need to review the workings of the change because the
devil would be in the details. We would need a careful
examination of all consequential changes that would need to be
made if the motion were passed.
How many private members' bills and motions could realistically
be handled in the life of a parliament? That is one question we
would need to answer.
Another question is how the items would be selected to ensure
that the most important issues were advanced and the rights of
each MP were respected. I come back to the first law in
parliamentary procedure, that we respect the rights of all
members.
We must examine the cost of doing this. We must review and make
additional changes so the change has maximum effectiveness. By
simply passing the motion we would open up a complete study of
how to make private members' business and all consequential
changes more effective. There would be a lot of changes and we
would need to ensure the principle was respected.
I urge all MPs to have the courage to make these key changes.
Let us be willing to work harder to ensure this place does what
it was originally intended to do in a democracy. Let us make it
more relevant to the lives of all Canadians. By making the
change we would trigger meaningful debates across the country on
various issues. That needs to happen here and across the
country.
I will conclude by sharing some of my personal experience with
regard to private members' business. Since I was first elected
to parliament in 1993 I have had a total of four private members'
bills and eight private members' motions selected for debate in
the House of Commons. That is twelve private members' bills and
motions. Not one has been deemed a votable item by the private
members' business subcommittee.
During my one hour of debate on each bill and motion I
introduced motions asking for unanimous consent to have them
declared votable and sent to the standing committee for further
study. All my motions were refused or deemed not votable by
members of the government on the other side of the House. Most
MPs in the House have not had much better luck.
I will give hon. members some statistics I compiled as I was
preparing for the debate. In the 35th parliament, 207 private
members' bills and motions were drawn. Only 77 were made
votable. That is 37%.
In the 36th parliament, the parliament before the last election,
223 private members' bills and motions were drawn. Only 58 were
made votable. That is 26%.
So far in this parliament, the 37th parliament, 60 private
members' bills and motions have been drawn. Only 12 have been
deemed votable. That is 20%.
The way the process is structured that percentage will decline.
We have a distinct pattern. Fewer and fewer private members'
bills and motions are being deemed votable. Since the beginning
of this parliament we as Canadian Alliance MPs have had 24 items
drawn and placed on the order of precedence. Only 2 of them have
been deemed votable. That is 8%. These statistics show that the
situation is getting worse over time, not better.
1055
One thing that concerns me is that at the committee we have
developed the custom that all decisions be a consensus. We have
determined that all bills and motions which are deemed votable,
which are drawn in the lottery and come to committee to be deemed
votable or not votable, should receive the support of most or all
members of the committee. That flies in the face of Beauchesne's
first principle:
To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of
a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an
orderly manner; to enable every Member to express opinions within
limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary
waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration
of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being
taken upon sudden impulse.
We must go back to that. We must ensure that the rights of
every MP are respected. That is the basis of democracy. That
must happen. Unless we go back to that we will be wasting our
time in a lot of the things we do.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an MP
or a party introduces a bill surely with the prime objective of
improving the living conditions and environment of the public.
As no one has a monopoly on the truth, we have debates. The aim
of debates is to convince the members of the merits of the
amendments and motions presented. The aim is also to listen to
colleagues who have suggestions to make or who say a given clause
or paragraph of the regulations should be changed. There could
be amendments that produce solid regulations that have the
support of everyone.
Members will agree with me that debates have no meaning if we
have expended energy, effort and time and cannot measure them by
means of a vote. The vote determines whether the debate was
properly held, whether the subject matter was treated properly
and whether we have managed to convince our colleagues of the
merits of the amendment to regulations, of the introduction of a
bill or of the presentation of a motion. I agree totally with
those who say each member should be able to introduce a bill.
Does my colleague agree that every debate and every amendment
must be consolidated with a vote at the end of the debate?
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is
that if the member who introduces a bill or motion wishes
parliament to decide on it and have a vote, the right of the
member should be respected. The answer is yes, unless the MP who
introduced the bill or motion does not wish to deem it votable.
I will pick up on something else my hon. colleague raised. It
was a very good point. I appreciate that he is supporting the
motion we brought forward. The point he raised is that debate in
the House is designed to convince colleagues that the position a
member takes in debate is correct.
There is nothing in the motion that would override the
principles of democracy. It would enhance democracy because it
would allow minorities, through their elected representatives, to
bring forth issues they feel are important to the whole country.
As members of the House listen to debate and engage in dialogue
they will need to decide whether an issue deserves the support of
the majority. That is why the motion would enhance democracy.
It would allow all of us to make decisions on matters that a
private member has deemed important enough to bring to the House.
1100
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a quick question for the hon. member who did such
a good job of introducing this idea.
There are now criteria in place that are required of a private
member's bill in order for it to be considered votable. I am not
sure what the number is. The criteria include such things as the
bill being of national interest rather than regional interest and
a few other things. In the past I think all bills sent to the
committee did meet those criteria, but for some reason they were
still not made votable.
Would the hon. member have any idea as to why a bill that meets
the criteria presently laid out in legislation would be refused
by the committee? Second, if the motion today were to pass would
he agree or disagree that there should be some criteria in place
in order for a bill to qualify for votability?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, there used to be 11
criteria that a private member had to comply with before the bill
would be considered votable, or at least most of those points had
to be complied with. Now there are only five. The member has
mentioned one of them, that of national interest. Also, if it is
on the government's agenda already it is not be deemed votable
and so on.
In answer to his question on why a bill is not deemed votable,
it is almost impossible for me to guess why other members on the
committee would not allow an item to be votable or would not
allow it to come forward. It almost appears to me as if the
committee has become partisan. The committee has been divided on
government and non-government or right wing and left wing lines.
If a certain issue comes up that is deemed to be on the agenda of
the other side, it is almost impossible to get that item to be
votable. It may be very important, but it is almost impossible
to do.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for
Yorkton—Melville, not only for his very good presentation this
morning but for his championing of this cause over the time he
has been here.
He is also a member of a party that very much promotes the
democratization of the House of Commons. In other words, members
of parliament are here to represent their constituents. The job
of private members, whether they are backbenchers on the Liberal
side or in opposition, is to represent the constituents.
My question for the member is this: If every private member who
introduced a private member's motion or bill had the opportunity
himself or herself to determine whether or not it was votable,
would that not drive the government bonkers? The government
would have to deal with a whole bunch of things that the people
out there want but the government does not.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to
respect the ability of each member in the House to decide an
issue. Maybe there is a concern on the government side that they
would not be able to control the agenda in the House of Commons.
However, if we sincerely believe in democracy we would have faith
in the members in this place to make the right decision. In
fact, we have to put more of an onus on members to make those
decisions in this place.
If we put the responsibility on MPs to listen to the debate and
to decide on the merits of a motion or a bill or whatever
legislation is introduced, they will begin to realize that if
they are to do their job they have to listen to the debate.
1105
Yes, there could be a concern that the government may lose track
of everything in this place, but I have faith in the MPs of the
House and in their ability to make decisions. That is why we
have to make this key change. I hope that is an answer to the
question that was posed, which is a very key and very important
question.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion
from the official opposition asking that the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to draft by November
1, 2001, changes to the standing orders improving procedures for
the consideration of private members' business.
[English]
First of all let me thank the hon. member across the way for
this very constructive motion, which I and my party intend to
support. I think it is excellent.
I perhaps neglected to indicate so at the beginning, but I wish
to share my time with the hon. member for Durham.
The role of private members' business draws on a long tradition
in the U.K. house of commons which allowed individual members to
propose legislative initiatives to reflect their own interests
and beliefs.
The government's 1993 election platform made commitments to give
members of parliament a greater role in the development and
debate of policy issues. In 1994 the government implemented a
commitment for more free votes in the House of Commons by making
every private members' business item a free vote. I want to
congratulate the Prime Minister for this initiative.
We have also supported initiatives to increase the flexibility
of private members' business so that it can respond to the
changing interests of members and their constituents. The
government has supported the view of members to continue the role
of the subcommittee on private members' business in administering
the draw of private members' items and determining which of these
items should be votable.
As all members know, the current arrangement allows more items
to be debated than would be the case if all items were made
votable. Let me explain that. The reason for this is that a
votable item is in effect time allocated. It is pre-programmed
in the standing orders with three hours of debate at second
reading and three additional hours that can be used in either
report stage, third reading or a combination thereof.
To make an item votable, then, displaces five non-votable items
because of course it takes six hours or thereabouts to get it
through the House. I know that is a maximum of six hours.
Sometimes they can get by more quickly. I understand there was a
case like that last week where one item, which I believe involved
Sir John A. Macdonald Day, was passed in one day. However, I
still think the principle generally holds true. There is a cost
in terms of time, then, for making all items votable.
Today's motion indicates that there is an interest among members
in studying the issue further, and I agree. We are fortunate in
having a considerable amount of work already done on the subject.
As a matter of fact, I want to congratulate the subcommittee and
of course the procedure and House affairs committee for the
surveys on these issues carried out in 1997, in 1998 and again in
2001.
The 1998 survey indicated that 48% of members said all items
should be votable and 50% said no. However, 70% felt that the
system could be changed or improved. I think that is what makes
the motion today so valuable. The 1998 survey was updated early
this year and the Library of Parliament reported on the results
in May. Now 62% of members feel that all items should be made
votable while 37% say no, so there has been a change of opinion
in the membership. In other words, there is a considerable
shift, with 10% or so more MPs saying that these items should be
votable. Of those who said no, some felt that more than the
current 10 items could be made votable. The House procedure
committee is continuing to study this issue.
1110
[Translation]
On June 1, the Special Committee on the Modernization and
Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons tabled its
report. As regards private members' business, the report of the
committee chaired by the deputy speaker of the House reads, and I
quote:
A great many of the Members who spoke during the debates in the
House of Commons on March 21, 2001, and May 1, 2001, addressed
the issue of Private Members' Business.
Among the suggestions that were made were that
all items should be votable; that all
Members should have an opportunity to propose a votable bill or
motion during the course of a parliamentary session...
Considerable support has been indicated for making virtually all
items of Private Members' Business votable, but serious concerns
have also been voiced.
The report also dealt with this issue.
[English]
I believe that the modernization committee's report is
consistent with the text of today's opposition motion in that it
asks the House procedure committee to consider the issue of
making more private members' items votable and to report to the
House on this matter. As I mentioned, the procedure committee
would benefit from the results of the modernization committee's
report as well as recent surveys, such as the one I have
described, indicating that a majority of members are now
interested in this.
However there would be a cost to making all items votable. It
may be that the cost is the proper price to pay. That is fine if
that is the determination of course. As I said, that is
something worth considering as long as we are not misled in our
collective effort by thinking that there is no price to pay. It
would multiply exponentially both the number of private members'
items and the number of them that are votable, because in a way
one could be achieved at the cost of the other.
In conclusion I would like to thank the member for
Yorkton—Melville, both for putting the motion and for amending
it yesterday in a way that makes it acceptable, hopefully, to all
members of the House. It is clearly a matter of interest to all
our colleagues in the House of Commons.
I am a minister now so therefore I cannot propose private
members' items, but there was a period when I could. I was
usually very fortunate in that draw. For reasons that I cannot
understand, my name was picked often in the process. I also have
been very fortunate in that some of the items I proposed actually
were adopted by the House, so I can relate to the benefits of
some of this.
Members will know that there is a statue on Parliament Hill in
honour of Lester B. Pearson. Many years ago that statue was
sculpted and subsequently erected on the Hill pursuant to a
motion I offered to the House. Perhaps in the eyes of some this
is but a small item, but I consider the Right Hon. Lester B.
Pearson to be a very great Canadian. I still do. He is a hero
to me. I proposed the initiative to parliament and it was
adopted. It is a grand day when things happen on the Hill as a
result of issues about which we feel profoundly. I thought that
this was important. Other members might think that their
favourite criminal code amendment is important, or their
favourite rights issue, or their favourite issue involving a
whole variety of things.
Finally I want to pay tribute to members of parliament who
propose issues. The mere fact that they generate these debates
means that the issues come back as part of government policy
later. I think of a number of colleagues on this side. I think
of the member from Mississauga who, through petitions, private
member's initiatives and so on, has raised the issue of fetal
alcohol syndrome. I think of our colleague from
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot and his initiatives on
access to information. Several other colleagues have raised this
issue. I think of the member for Kitchener Centre and her
efforts, which have now found their way into government bills, to
stop people from gouging consumers through the postal system and
through 1-900 telephone lines. I think of the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his initiatives on competition
policy.
1115
Many good ideas have come from both sides of the House through
private members' items. Some have found their way into law. Some
have found their way indirectly into law. Many of them have made
this place better with the quality of debate they have produced.
Again I congratulate the hon. member and offer him my support.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I quickly jumped to my feet to ask the hon.
government House leader a question because it is such a rare
opportunity. When he says he supports the motion I wonder if he
is saying that he and his party will be voting for the motion.
Hon. Don Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the intention
of the government. The motion is about private members' hour but
it is not a private member's motion. It is a supply motion so I
can indicate clearly the government's position thereon, which is
to support the motion.
As I said, it is a subject that we addressed in our
modernization committee. I am sure all hon. members have read
the report of the modernization committee and will know that we
addressed many issues. We had to report by June 1 but we could
not complete it as a result of work being done by the
subcommittee and others and so on. We have addressed the issue.
We welcome the opportunity. We encourage the committee to
continue working on the initiative to make it better.
Something was said by the proposer of the motion today which
disturbed me a bit. He sees a tendency to make less items
votable. That is very unfortunate. I am sure it is accurate.
That he has raised it, I am sure it is true, but it is
unfortunate that I have not noticed that trend. If that trend is
occurring as we are now told it is, I believe that to be very
unfortunate.
When we made the rule to have a maximum of 10 items votable,
certainly none of us at the time ever envisioned that the number
would be progressively decreasing. That was not the purpose. It
was meant to identify a critical mass of items that would be made
votable to ensure that there was a healthy mix. I suppose the
five party system we have now with the subcommittee operating on
consensus with majority opposition and minority government
membership is a rather strange construct.
Perhaps this is the opportunity to raise it. Whatever the
committee recommends, it must find ways to ensure that if not all
items are votable, should that be the conclusion, the reduction
in votable items should be arrested forthwith and the trend
should be reversed toward making it what it used to be, at the
very least, what I call the critical mass of votable items.
Anyway, I do not want to give the conclusions of what the
committee will do because it will report however it wishes.
However I am concerned by the statistics given to us by the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville earlier this day. I do not think it
is healthy if those numbers are decreasing, particularly at the
pace which he identified.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation for the
hon. House leader's support of the motion and the government's
expression of support for it. I do know from my work in this
place that there has been a lot of support for making more
private members' items votable.
The hon. member talked about cost. I know there would likely be
a cost to making more items of private members' business votable
because we would need more time. I am not sure when time would
become available, but would there be support on the other side
for making more time available in a week? Would there be support
for having the resources of the House of Commons made available
to have more time for debate?
1120
If we go back in history, there was a lot more time given to
private members' business. As we moved away from that there has
been a kind of apathy developing among members and Canadians
generally. Would more time be made available for this?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty hard to give
a conclusion to that debate at the moment. Having heard what we
heard earlier, unfortunately the difficulty is that we are not
even using all the votable time available to us now. Getting
into a debate on how much we need to increase it is rather
academic because we are not doing that which we should be doing
at the present time.
In any case, it is a little early to arrive at that kind of
conclusion. I am looking forward to the report of that committee
and to working in co-operation with the committee. I am sure I
will be doing so along with other House leaders when the time
comes.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
enter the debate on the excellent motion of the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville. I share the frustration of many members of
the House in dealing with private members' bills.
Indeed in the 35th parliament my own private member's bill
actually made it not only through first reading but also through
second reading and was referred to a committee of the House. Then
we adjourned for an election. After that I tried to reintroduce
it and it was deemed non-votable. It seemed like a ridiculous
procedure to me, so I certainly look forward to changing some of
the rules that deal with private members' business.
From listening to the debate I have a couple of questions. The
hon. member mentioned that in a sense there would not be a lot of
rigorous machinery to make a bill votable. It seems there are
two issues involved in that.
I do not know who will be the judge of all this, but what
happens if a bill is totally ludicrous? In other words, we are
all responsible for the House and for the image that the House
portrays to Canadians. If bills that were totally ludicrous or
totally unacceptable to the general public were made votable in
the House, it would reflect poorly on the institution of
parliament.
I understand we now have a rigorous procedure to go through as
to whether it qualifies as a private member's bill. The hon.
member seems to be talking about loosening up on that kind of
jurisdiction, allowing almost all bills proposed by one member in
one term to be deemed votable.
I have some concern about that. I am not sitting in judgment of
other members' bills. Every member who brings a bill forward
certainly thinks that the bill has a great deal of merit, but I
wonder on a collective basis whether we need to focus on some
kind of filtration system, maybe not one that is overly onerous
but one that exists just the same.
There is a second issue I want to question. I visited
Westminster, the mother of all parliaments, in London. I
discovered that a system has evolved there with private members'
bills such that lobbyists or private interest groups, often
commercial private interest groups, whether the pharmaceutical
industry or whatever the case may be, have discovered that a way
to promote their cause has been to select a private member.
I am not saying that the private member is recompensed
economically, but it would appear that is true. The private
member then becomes an advocate of the particular policy because
it is very difficult to influence general government policy. All
members of parliament are allowed to have votable private
members' bills before the house. For instance, if companies were
trying to get their pharmaceutical processes approved in Great
Britain, they may well choose a private member who would put
forward a bill promoting their philosophies.
1125
It seems to me that what we are talking about today would lead
to that kind of process. I know members of parliament want to
feel that they are important, but it could be that they are
attached to private interest groups that possibly have other
agendas. In that case it would actually do the reverse of some
of the things the member is talking about. It would not actually
enhance the democracy of the institution. It may go in the
opposite direction.
We see that all the time in the United States where private
sector groups do what they can to influence congressmen and
senators to bring forward legislation which is of interest to
them in particular. It is a lot easier to influence one person
than a whole government. If those agendas can be brought to the
House of Commons and therefore to the polity and to the media, it
is a great avenue to use.
It would concern me that if we moved too much in this direction
abuse could exist. I am sure what the member is suggesting
is that we study how we can make it work. The House leader was
talking about private members' bills that are looked upon as
great successes. I know the Prime Minister is often quoted as
talking about his private member's bill to change the name of
TransCanada Airlines to Air Canada. I know all members of the
House at various times have been involved in the private member
process.
Historically, if we go back in time in the country, private
members' bills were more common. It seems that as the
parliamentary system matured we moved more toward government
bills taking the onus of the day than private members' bills. To
some extent the member is attempting to enhance the role of
individual members of parliament. I applaud that process. We
have to move toward more democratization of the House. We have
to improve the rights and responsibilities of members of
parliament.
I say responsibilities because quite often it is easy to hide
behind a party platform and not take responsibility for the
thought process. Lifting that veil comes with a cost to
individual members who have to think out the process of their
individual private members' bills. Ideally they will have to
confront the public with them and justify them. I certainly see
where the move toward a greater use of private members' bills is
a good and positive move for the Chamber.
No one has a monopoly on good ideas. Sometimes we all think,
whether we are the opposition or the government, we have a
monopoly on good ideas, but there are a lot of good ideas in the
country. This process would open up that concept, allow more
good ideas to come to the floor of the House of Commons and allow
us the opportunity to debate them. The member certainly has
brought forward a compelling argument to proceed with greater
democratization of the House. I look forward to that debate
going forward.
I guess another aspect is that there is a cost to people who
want to put multiple bills before the House. We can point to a
number of members who have 30, 40 or 50 bills before the House.
Obviously they will be at a significant disadvantage because only
one of their bills will be votable. There may be a cost benefit
relationship there. I do not know. I suppose they put forward
that many bills so that they could promote various causes. They
will have to find other ways to do it.
Many members decline putting forward private members' bills
because of the whole concept that they will not be made votable.
They put much work and effort into the process only to
discover that it is not votable. It would be great if each
member during the term of a parliament would have the right to
put forward one votable private member's bill.
I certainly applaud the member for bringing the motion forward
and look forward to supporting it.
1130
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the remarks that the
hon. member made. I would like to pick up on something that he
said, and that is no one has a monopoly on good ideas in this
place.
He has asked some very key questions and I do not want to
pretend to have all the answers. That is why we are having this
debate and that is why a committee will likely have to deal with
everything that members bring forward as a solution to the
dilemma we find ourselves in.
Two of the concerns he raised are very legitimate. If a bill is
ludicrous and it is deemed votable, will that reflect on the
institution of parliament? It may but it will also reflect on
the member who brings it forward. His constituents, the people
of Canada, will I think render a judgment on an abuse of this
provision to make all private members' business votable.
What kind of machinery would be put in place to examine private
members' business? The devil is in the details. I said that in
my speech. We will probably have to have some kind of a system,
and I do not know what it will be, to examine issues that come
before the House so that there is not an abuse of the system. I
would welcome suggestions. I do not have a monopoly on all the
ideas.
The concern for the abuse of the system is a legitimate concern.
We have swung so far in one direction in having very little
votable, that if we swing maybe all the way the other way, some
other problems will develop. We have to try to foresee that and
prevent that.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of
co-operation, I think we are all trying to find answers to the
same questions. I raised some of the ones that occurred to me
because of my experience in other places. I am sure there are
ways to resolve them. That is our great benefit, that we can
study what has gone on in other jurisdictions and hopefully can
cull the bad parts of those practices.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to intervene on this motion by our
colleagues in the Canadian Alliance within the framework of
opposition day.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am intervening as a member of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and, like
my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, as a member of the
subcommittee on private members' business, because the opposition
motion of today, on which we should vote in the House, addresses
this directly. I believe it would be appropriate to read the
opposition motion:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be
instructed to draft, and report to this House no later than
November 1, 2001, changes to the Standing Orders improving
procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business,
including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be
votable.
I wish to indicate right off to my colleague from
Yorkton-Melville that the members of the Bloc Quebecois support
this motion for the various reasons I shall be sharing with hon.
members in the next few minutes.
The motion per se addresses an element on which we should focus:
that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs must
produce a workable proposal; it must be realistic and realizable.
I will be suggesting some improvements. All of us here agree
that there is room for considerable improvement. It is all very
well to say that the government should do this or that, but we
ought to suggest some improvements.
1135
For the benefit of our listeners, whom I could describe as
uninitiated, one of the problems I have noticed here in the House
is that sometimes, when we deal with rather obscure technical
details, we have a tendency to address our speeches to each
other, as parliamentarians, and forget that we are above all
democratically elected representatives of the public.
One of the reasons that parliament agreed to cameras in the
House of Commons and in certain committees was to ensure that the
public, those acting as watchdogs over the work of their elected
officials, could take in the debates.
I think that we should begin by explaining the process as it now
stands, what this opposition motion is all about, and what could
be changed, so as to help the public better understand the
changes we might suggest.
Right now, a member from either the government or the opposition
side may introduce a motion or a private member's bill, as
opposed to a government bill.
A member, whether he is a Liberal member, as he is in this case,
or a member from one of the other four opposition parties, may
introduce a bill on any topic he wishes, subject, of course, to
certain criteria, which I do not have time to go into here.
Any member may introduce a motion or a bill.
Since there are 301 members and the time allowed for
consideration of these motions and private members' bills is
quite limited, parliament has instituted a draw procedure so that
all members have an opportunity to introduce a bill.
It is clearly understood that in 2001 we could debate at
length this draw procedure. The names of members who want to
table motions or bills at first reading are in a container, a
sort of urn, or hat—well, not exactly—a sort of container
from which the bills are literally drawn.
Since 1993, I have been thinking about a way to improve this
procedure of the draw, because it might well be considered
archaic, from another era. Sometimes we like our old symbols
here in Canada. Sometimes they are holdovers from the monarchy
or of the British system.
The best proof of that is the continued existence of the Senate
here. We still have a Governor General, and lieutenant governors
in the provinces. This is the product of a monarchy of another
era, but at any rate we have not time here to go on at length
on the subject.
They came up with the system I consider archaic. However, I
cannot suggest anything better or more transparent or fairer than
the draw.
When the name of a member is selected, following the draw, the
member may want his bill to be voted on. There are members,
though, who say when their name is drawn “I really do not care
that much if my bill is voted on. I am happy to be drawn, to have
my name drawn, but I only want to have an hour's debate on the
issue, just to draw the attention of the House and of public
opinion to it”. That is the member's choice.
1140
I must admit that it is rare for an MP to decide that even if
his or her name gets picked in the lottery his or her bill does
not need to be voted on. The bulk of members whose names are
picked come before the subcommittee on private members' business
where they have to plead their case, no more and no less.
This subcommittee is made up of representatives of all parties.
I can say, as a member, it is not seen as a partisan committee.
The same party divisions are not felt there as in the others, be
they on environment, transport or Canadian heritage. One is not
aware of the same partisanship, the same party lines.
Each member of the subcommittee on private members' business
listens attentively to the case being made by colleagues who have
been selected, so that at the end of the process when all those
whose names have been selected have been heard they can reach a
consensus on which bill can be made votable and which not.
If the bill falls into the non-votable category, there is one
hour's debate on it and then it dies at the end of the hour.
If the bill is deemed to be votable by the subcommittee on
private members' business, then there are three hours of debate
on second reading. These three are not consecutive. There is
one hour on one day, a second on another, and the third later on.
Once there have been three hours of debate, a division follows.
That is, in a nutshell, the current procedure.
What the opposition motion suggests is, of course, that we
should arrange things so that once all bills have been in the
lottery and the subcommittee on private members' business
procedure has been carried out—one of the rare committees, as I
have already said, that is non-partisan and holds informed and
consensual discussions—all bills should then be votable.
However, if we want all items selected following a draw to be
votable, we must basically eliminate the procedure involving the
private members' business subcommittee.
This is not a major objection. Some of my caucus colleagues
might have preferred the status quo, but we realize that there
could be some improvement. All private members' business
would become votable.
However, we must devise a formula so that interested members can
always have their turn. Neither the Prime Minister nor the
ministers introduce private members' bills. If we eliminate these
30 some people, it leaves 271 other members, not all of whom
introduce bills or motions under private members' business.
Technically, there is a considerable number of them and this is
why the opposition motion provides that we should find a
functional formula, a workable proposal.
This is why I will now make suggestions to improve things. As
member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
I have a suggestion to make on behalf of my party, but we will
also discuss other possibilities. Among the realistic and
feasible suggestions to deal with this issue, there is one that
is of particular interest to me.
1145
We could set aside one day for private members' business, even
if this means extending sitting hours on other days or beginning
earlier on other days. On Mondays we start at 11 a.m.; on
Tuesdays we begin at 10 a.m.; on Wednesdays, because of the
caucus meetings, it may be difficult to start before 2 p.m.; on
Thursdays and Fridays, the House begin its proceedings at 10 a.m.
Since we would have one day of debates on private members'
business and the government would in effect lose one day to
discuss its own bills, it would certainly be possible to make up
for the hours lost on that day during the rest of the week by
beginning earlier or finishing later.
I would see Friday as the day for private members' business,
motions and votable bills. Fridays have become a bit of a joke.
Those following the debates on Fridays can see that most of our
questions are addressed to empty benches.
We see that on Fridays, 17, 18 or 19 of the 24, 27 or 28—I am
not sure of the exact number—members of cabinet are missing on
average; we can provide the statistics if members wish. Answers
to our questions are given by parliamentary secretaries who are
absolutely, totally and completely ignorant about the issues our
questions address. I do not necessarily wish to imply that these
parliamentary secretaries are themselves ignorant, but they are
not familiar with the issues, with the result that Oral Question
Period on Fridays, as any journalist following the business of
the House can testify, is a farce, a circus.
In any event, most members return to their ridings on Thursdays.
Canada is a big country, and members are returning to the Yukon,
Labrador, British Columbia and Newfoundland. I do not have a
problem with this but, as a democratic institution, are we
effective on Fridays? Unless I am dreaming, unless I am not on
the same planet as my colleagues, is Friday a model of
parliamentary efficiency?
Mr. Speaker, you have been a member for quite a long time. You
know the answer, but I know you cannot reply to my question.
In your innermost being, you are telling yourself that the member
for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans is
right.
We must take the bull by the horns and improve how things are
done on Fridays.
If Fridays were kept for private members' business, there would
be ample time, even if it meant changing sitting times, to
accommodate more members.
I have not drawn up any mathematical model or virtual timetable
of what I am proposing. It will be up to us, to our clerks, and
those connected with the business of parliament to suggest how
this should be done. I personally would like to see the matter
of Friday's sittings seriously re-examined.
The government House leader might come back with “Yes, but on
Fridays we have time set aside for government orders. How could
that be handled?” As I have said, we could start earlier or
finish later the other days, so that at the end of the process
the government would still have the same number of hours weekly.
This is a non-partisan proposal, a realistic and practicable
proposal I am making. The government might find this to its
liking and would ensure that it was not deprived of its time for
debating the bills it introduces in the House.
1150
The private members' business subcommittee did a survey. My
colleague from Yorkton—Melville is well aware that a majority of
members recognize that there should be a new approach. These
colleagues recognize that this matter could be improved.
As the results of the survey have not yet been officially tabled
in the House, I do not want to discuss the results further. I
want to preserve the confidentiality of the work of the private
members' business subcommittee. I do not think I would run afoul
of its confidentiality by saying that the feeling is largely
shared by all of our colleagues.
What changes should be made? What should the new approach be?
It will be up to us to develop it.
I close by saying that a piece of business from a private member
is foremost the expression of the member's deep values. When a
member is elected, in a way it amounts to telling him to take our
words to the House. A member is there as well to express the
wishes of his riding, and he must not forget this role.
In the context of this process, I introduced a bill that would
enable mechanics to have the cost of their tools deducted from
their taxes. Unfortunately, 91 Liberal members changed their
opinion on this. Before the election, there was one attitude,
after it, another. It had been debated.
Unfortunately, the bill was not passed. I was lucky enough to
have my name drawn. A colleague may come along with an
interesting idea—no one has a monopoly on interesting ideas in
this House—and could have it debated if the procedure were
changed.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to voice my support
for the member's suggestion that Fridays should be dedicated to
private members' hour. In fact, if the members so chose, I think
the hours of sitting on Friday could be extended. If the members
want to debate private members' business they should not be
confined to 8 hours. They could do it for 10 hours or 12 hours
so long as they wanted to carry on a discussion of private
members' business. I think that would be a very progressive
thing to do and might take some of the pressure off making all
private members' bills votable.
I would like to ask the member opposite a very specific
question, knowing that he has extensive knowledge of private
members' business and the history of private members' business in
the last couple of parliaments.
We used to have a 100 signature rule that enabled private
members' bills to bypass the lottery. What it meant basically is
that if a member could get all party support or the support of
three parties in the House then a private member's bill would
bypass the lottery and go directly onto the order of precedence.
It did not work. We know it did not work. There is a variety
of reasons why it did not work.
However, I wonder what the member thinks about a situation
whereby if all bills are votable, rather than requiring the
lottery only to determine whether these bills actually come
forward, perhaps in this case the 100 signature rule might work
in fast tracking bills of exceptional value to the House onto the
order of precedence.
1155
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I
have no problem with the number of hours we sit on Fridays being
increased, with the House beginning at 8 a.m. on Fridays or
sitting for 12 hours in order to consider private members'
business.
When a member has introduced a bill, it is in his interest to be
there when it is debated. If he is told that his bill will be
called the following Friday at 5 p.m. or 5.30 p.m., the member
will arrange to be there. When we know the time in advance, we
can adjust our schedules. This could be one solution to
consider.
I find it strange that the member raises the issue of the 100
signatures. The private members' business subcommittee tabled a
report recommending that the 100 signature rule be eliminated,
and this was adopted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs.
The problems we had came up as a result of one of his bills. He
is the very one who brought all this to a head. Certain members
said that their free and informed consent to the wording of a
bill had been altered by amendments introduced by the member,
with the result that the consent implied by the 100 signatures no
longer necessarily obtained.
I am surprised that the member is bringing up the matter of the
100 signatures, because he is directly responsible. He can try
to claim responsibility for the fact that everyone in the House
wanted to drop this procedure, but it is not necessarily to his
credit and I am not necessarily complimenting him.
I personally would be trying to have the whole thing forgotten
rather than drawing attention to myself.
We could perhaps discuss using the 100 signatures to replace the
draw. We know that sometimes the 100 signatures resulted in
bargaining. Sometimes members were uncomfortable because it was
for a fellow committee member and there was the issue of fair
play after all.
Even though we are adversaries—I am not saying the fight is
fixed; we know that our political opinions differ—we are still
able to respect one another. We ask for the respect of members
whose opinions differ and we give them our respect in turn.
Sometimes this made us uncomfortable: “So and so is a member
of my committee and I cannot turn him down”. I can tell the
member that it would be studied. I do not know if that is the
solution. As I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, perhaps
the draw, although not perfect, is still the best way of
deciding.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER REPORT—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Before we get
involved in more questions or comments, the Chair would like to
make the following ruling on the point of order made earlier
today by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
concerning the tabling of the report of the information
commissioner. The Chair wishes to make a brief statement to
clarify the situation.
I refer hon. members to Standing Order 32(1) which concerns
documents deposited pursuant to a statutory or other authority. I
would like to inform members that pursuant to this standing order
the annual report of the information commissioner, 2000-01, was
tabled with the clerk earlier today. Once a document is
deposited with the clerk, it is in effect a public document.
Therefore the report is available to members at the distribution
counters across the Hill.
I thank all hon. members for the opportunity to make this
statement.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the
constructive suggestions that my hon. Bloc colleague made to this debate.
I am really pleased to see that political stripes have been laid
aside, that our partisanship has been put aside, because this
motion goes beyond politics.
It would benefit all individual MPs and would really enhance our
ability to do our jobs.
1200
The member supported the idea that Fridays could be dedicated to
dealing with private members' business. That is probably a very
good suggestion.
Would the hon. member support more time being allocated to
private members' business if all bills were deemed votable? If
we had one hour Monday to Thursday and six hours on Friday we
would actually double the time that would be allocated to private
members' business. Would he support more time?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I think that if this
evening, the hon. member were to take a fresh second look at the
speech I just gave, he will see that it might be an excellent
idea.
Personally, my focus or deep motivation will be to improve the
effectiveness of Friday sittings and to see that six, seven or
eight hours are set aside on Fridays, because it has now become
ridiculous to sit here on Fridays. We are totally inefficient. I
have no problems with setting aside other hours during the week.
I will conclude by telling the hon. member that this is indeed
an issue that transcends party lines. It has nothing to do with
being a sovereignist, a federalist, a member of the green, blue
or red party, or a right or left wing militant, not at all. We
are here first and foremost to represent the people. We were
democratically elected by our constituents and I take for granted
that everyone here wants to further the interests of his or her
constituents.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
go back to the question, not the one which was just answered, but
the previous one, and say that as a new member of this House I
think it is important that a mechanism be put in place to ensure
that all bills that may be debated really be debated.
The requirement to collect 100 signatures could result in
something tantamount to lobbying, because one has to know as many
members as possible to get signatures. If this were the case, a
new member would prefer a draw.
I am very pleased by the motion of the Canadian Alliance,
because it would benefit all members equally, regardless of the
number of signatures collected.
I ask the hon. member: Does he endorse these comments?
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, indeed it had escaped my
mind, but we had 45 new colleagues from all parties join us after the
November 27, 2000 election. My colleague from Châteauguay, who
proudly and very effectively represents the people of
Châteauguay, was one of these new members. As a result, as a new
member he may not necessarily share the ties we have forged with
colleagues from all parties since 1993.
This, the 100 signatures, is a kind of blackmail, a kind of
begging, and I believe we ought to revert to the luck of the
draw.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it seems appropriate, given that we are debating a motion which
has as one of its goals a workable proposal for allowing all
items to be votable, to remember that at one point in this place
no private members' business was automatically votable.
I say that with particular significance given the fact that the
Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa and the member
for Burnaby—Douglas are in the House, and I am on my feet, and
all three of us are the only surviving members of the class of
1979. When we arrived in this place, private members' business
routinely came up for only an hour, was talked out and could only
be brought to a vote then and there if there was unanimous
consent.
Generally that involved some kind of skulduggery on the part of
people who were in the House at the time.
1205
On the few occasions that things were passed with unanimous
consent, they were certainly never voted on. They were only done
if they were unanimously agreed to, and that was an
unsatisfactory procedure. I say this for newer members of the
House because perhaps it has been so long since that was the case
that they no longer see the system that we now have as an
improvement because what we have today has been the case since
1986. Fifteen years is a long time of doing things a particular
way and we have found that it does not satisfy all members.
There has been a recurring debate about the wisdom or even the
possibility of all private members' business becoming votable
items.
We in the NDP feel we can support the motion and intend to
support it because we think it would be a worthy task for the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come up with
a workable proposal. I register my skepticism about whether or
not this can be done because it would seem to me that one of the
things a workable proposal would involve, and this would be my
concern with respect to making all private members' business
votable, would be some kind of mechanism whereby the House would
not be forced to divide on matters that would seem to be
frivolous or not worthy of the consideration of the House of
Commons.
The McGrath committee in 1985 recommended the procedure we have
now. It was thought to be an achievement just to get six out of
twenty items to be votable.
Having said that, the other perspective behind that was that
there needed to be some kind of filtering or discerning mechanism
to make sure that what came before the House for lengthier debate
and ultimately for a decision was worthy of that kind of
attention. Any kind of workable proposal would have to give the
House, either by special committee, by negotiation or by some way
that is not clear to me at this point, a way to make a
discernment as to what should come before the House for lengthier
debate and for a vote.
I wish the committee well in trying to do this. We are
certainly not against the idea because this is something we have
all been working on. It was part of the raison d'être behind the
100 signature mechanism, which I was skeptical about at the
beginning and which ultimately did not work for a variety of
reasons. Like a lot of reforms around here, they do not always
work out exactly the way they are intended. They have unforeseen
consequences, and that was the case with that reform.
However there has been a will, off and on, to try to come up
with a better system than the one we now have. I am not standing
here today to say that the system we have is perfect, but I am
somewhat skeptical as to whether or not we can come up with a
better imperfect system than the one we have. We shall see.
With respect to the idea suggested earlier by a Bloc
spokesperson, if I understood him correctly, about devoting
Fridays to private members' business, the member thought that
Fridays were not exactly a highlight of the parliamentary week.
1210
If he thinks the Fridays we now have are not the highlight of
the parliamentary week, my fear for Fridays that would be used to
deal only with private members' business is that they would make
the Fridays we now have look exciting and well attended. We have
to be somewhat more realistic about the number of members who
would stay in town so they could catch a private member's debate
on Friday morning or Friday afternoon.
Maybe I am wrong about this but one of the things we need to do,
which would be much better to do and to some extent we do it
already, is to embed private members' business in the ongoing
routine business of the House so that people are here and so that
it happens in a context where members are available and do not
have to make a special effort for private members' business.
That is too bad in a sense. One would think, given a lot of the
rhetoric about private members' business from many members and
from all sides of the House, that people would be rushing in here
to deal with private members' business. However anyone who has
ever come to private members' hour knows that it is not
necessarily the case.
I would like to put on record my own reservations. I am not
necessarily speaking for my colleagues on this when it comes to
the Friday analysis because it is not something we have taken a
position on, so to speak. I am not sure that the notion of
devoting Fridays to private members' business would work as well
as some people think it would.
Some of the rhetoric that applies to developing a better private
members' business model sometimes comes in the context of a
larger argument for giving members of parliament more power as
individuals. That is where we really have to look in terms of
enhancing the role of individual members of parliament, both
individually and collectively.
I say with regret that the modernization committee report which
may be debated later today or tomorrow unfortunately did not
really do that. It did not change the balance of power in this
place so that members on committees, for instance, both
individually and collectively, would have more power over the
government and the cabinet and would have more independence.
Those are the kinds of things that are all critical to empowering
the private member, to empowering the individual member.
When the McGrath committee made its recommendations on private
members' business, the recommendations with which we have lived
for the last 15 years, it made them in conjunction with another
set of recommendations having to do with committees that have not
been implemented.
We should have taken the full spirit of McGrath and implemented
it so that it was not just in terms of private members' business
but also in terms of committees. Taking parliamentary
secretaries or government coaches off the committees and keeping
them off; giving members on committees, particularly government
backbenchers, more independence from their whips so that they
could not be removed at a moment's notice if all of a sudden they
developed an independent thinking capacity or came to be critical
of a bill or to see its inadequacies in a way that the government
did not like; and changing the rules so that these people could
not be yanked and replaced with others would go a long way toward
giving individual members more power to do the kind of job that
Canadians expect them to do when they come here.
I do not see any point in belabouring the debate. We are in
favour of the motion. We hope the committee will be able to come
up with a workable proposal. Of course we will do our part when
the committee is engaged in that task.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to make an observation
pertinent to the 100 signature commentary. I think we all agree
that it does not work.
1215
I observed that one of the flaws in making all bills votable
would mean there would be 264 MPs who would have the potential of
having a votable bill before the House. The problem with that is
the reality is that the number of MPs who are actually active in
private members' business and who have been activists is
comparatively small. If we suddenly say everyone can take part
and have a votable item, we will have a lot of people coming
forward with bills that perhaps have not been thought out
carefully or they are just doing it because they have an
opportunity to do it and that kind of thing.
I would suggest to the member that regardless of the 100
signature rule, whether it works or not, surely in this context
we need some sort of fast tracking mechanism, some sort of
screening mechanism that will make sure that the House debates
bills that are indeed worthy of the House's attention.
Would the member perhaps have a comment on that?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I think the member is
trying to make a similar point to the one I was making. Whether
or not it should be exactly as he describes it is another matter,
but I think we both agree on the fact that we want to see the
House debate things that either a representative group of the
House or the House itself in some way has decided is worthy of
the House's attention. It seems to me that that should be a
guiding principle of whatever process we come up with.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I would like to express my
appreciation to my NDP colleague for support of this motion. I
agree that we must change the balance of power and empower
individual members. He made that statement, and I could not
agree more.
He expressed a concern that the House may be forced to divide on
matters that were frivolous and that we should have some kind of
a mechanism whereby we would prevent those kinds of bills or
motions coming forward. My response to that would be that I
would rather rely on the common sense of MPs in this place to
decide whether something is frivolous or not rather than put in
place a mechanism that could be used by others to control issues
that come forward here.
I would ask the hon. member: Why are we here? Is it not to make
decisions that matter to Canadians, that Canadians deem to be
important? Is it not incumbent on us to thoroughly examine and
debate issues that are important enough to be brought forward?
Should we allow government or certain parties to block certain
issues from coming forward? If we put a mechanism like that in
place, would it not then be abused?
I really cannot think of any examples of frivolous matters.
Maybe the member would like to suggest that, but I would fear
some kind of a mechanism that could be used to prevent issues
from coming forward.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, there is a legitimate
debate here between people who want to err in favour of
protecting the institution of parliament from being perceived as
a place where things are considered and voted upon that really
are not worthy of the place, and people who would err on the side
of the individual rights of members of parliament to cause the
House, not just to debate but to have to vote on anything that
tickles their fancy.
For instance, what if the member for Calgary West wanted to put
forward a private member's motion that the honorary citizenship
of Nelson Mandela once it is achieved be taken away? It seems to
me that this is something that a committee or whatever process we
might set up should have the ability to rule out and should have
the ability to say that is a frivolous matter and it is not on.
The member may have some opportunity in procedure to bring it up
for debate, and that would be regrettable enough, but to cause
the House to automatically have to vote on certain things that
would bring the law into disrepute and there are also certain things
that would bring the House into disrepute, I wonder whether or
not we should have some kind of mechanism for that.
1220
However, I understand the dangers. I understand the worry but
that is what we have in terms of the subcommittee. Although the
subcommittee is like some courts, it does not have to issue an
opinion as to why it chooses some things or not, which is good,
because if it did then we would have all kinds of debate about
the opinions of the subcommittee as to whether or not it was
justified.
I think the system we have actually works not too bad in that
respect, partly because the subcommittee does not have to give
reasons. We are not then embroiled in a continuous debate about
the appropriateness of its reasoning on these matters.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to be able to rise in perhaps this next to last debate
of this session of parliament, and to do so on a supply motion of
the Alliance Party.
As for the motion itself, I will speak to that. I agree with a
lot of what is in the motion, and certainly the party I represent
will be supporting it for any number of reasons. I will get into
that.
The first thing I should mention is that I had hoped that the
final supply day of the Alliance Party could have put a
topic on the floor of the Chamber that was a bit more
pertinent to the issues of the day. I can think of any number.
Perhaps Bill C-15 could have been one.
We sat in this Chamber and talked about the Minister of
Justice not being prepared to split a justice bill, which I think
each and every member of the House could accept, with respect to
Internet pornography and stalking legislation. It simply would
be a matter of splitting off what I consider to be two areas of
Bill C-15 which have no business being in the omnibus bill. They
are the issues of gun control and cruelty to animals, which are
very specifically pertinent to me because I am a member who
represents a rural riding.
That issue could well have been debated. In fact, the
government of the day could have been taken to task for not doing
something that it should have done in order to get the
legislation through the House.
Another issue of which the member is very cognizant, and he
certainly is a member who is prepared to have a lot of political
capital expended on it, is gun control. We perhaps should have
had the opportunity to have a debate on the floor of the House
today, as it pertains to Bill C-15 as well.
We have a government that has not put a budget together for the
House for almost a year and a half. It will be two years before
we have a budget. That is a very important issue which we should
be talking about today before we break for the summer. However,
what we are talking about is private members' business, which is
important, but not as I understand it of the most prevalent
importance as we head into the summer.
I would also like to say now that I will be splitting my time
with my colleague, the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He can take that particular
concept from there.
Regarding private members' business, I sit on the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and also on the
private members' business committee, so I perhaps have
some knowledge of which I speak. That may be corrected under
questions and comments I am sure.
This is an issue, as the learned member from the NDP knows, the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona who has been here since then, since 1979.
We know there is an evolution with respect to private members'
business. We know that ultimately there will be refinements and
changes to a system. We as a society change over the years. We
as a House change over the years. We as members of the House
representing our own respective constituencies change over the
years and require and demand more ability to stand in the House
and speak on issues that are very important and prevalent to us.
The member talked about 1979 and referred to newer
members in the House and not older members. Obviously since 1979
he would have to refer to himself as an older member.
However, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona. Being here for that length of time, he
knows how difficult it is to move this House and governments of
any guise, whether they be Liberal or Conservative, to make the
necessary changes within the procedures of House affairs.
1225
I am one who specifically believes unequivocally that all
private members' business should be votable. I can speak to some
experience as recent as last week when I put forward a bill to
the House which had been diligently worked on over the last
number of months. I felt very strongly about the bill because it
specifically impacted my constituents. It dealt with safety nets
for agriculture because I felt it was very important that we come
to some resolution on that issue. I put forward a bill which in
my opinion would have taken us in that direction. Lo and behold
the bill was deemed not votable.
A number of members from the Alliance Party and
the New Democratic Party, and I spoke in favour of that piece of
legislation. Unfortunately, it was limited to one hour of
debate, was not votable and died when I gave my final five
minutes of comments. That piece of legislation will no longer
have a chance to go through the House.
I speak of my own personal experience but every member sitting
in the House has had the same experience and can say the same
thing. They believe very strongly that with their particular
issue it is important to have the vehicle, not only to debate in
the House but also to give everybody the opportunity to stand on
his or her feet and say yea or nay to that particular piece of
legislation. I would love to see the committee work toward that
end, and we are. The motion by the member for Yorkton—Melville
would also assist us to work toward that end.
Recently in committee we discussed suggestions to change the
current model to allow all bills to be votable. There was some
difficulty trying to massage this through the necessary model and
process.
For example, it was suggested that 264 members of the House
could have a private member's bill that was votable. What is the
model? Does each member of the House get one votable bill per
parliament? Perhaps. This would mean there would be 66 per year
depending on when the Prime Minister called an election. That
figure of 66 was based on an average of four years, but it could
be three and a half or two and a half years. We do not know.
However we will use the average of four years.
A survey was conducted and it was found that not all members
wanted to have a votable bill or motion. Some did not wish to go
through the process or they wished, for their own reasons, not to
have that particular tool. That is their decision to make.
Nobody should be forced to have a votable motion or bill.
However, in my opinion, those who wish to have a votable item
should have the ability to have at least one that is votable
throughout a parliament. That can be accomplished.
It was also suggested that there should be some criteria
available to stop what others may consider to be frivolous. What
one person deems frivolous, another person may well deem very
serious. Criteria have to be established. Currently within the
guise of private members' business there are some criteria already
established, but they have to be changed and massaged.
However, it is a fairly reasonable start to say that if a bill
proposed by member x conformed to the list of criteria,
then it should go forward as a private member's bill, votable
within a parliament. If for some reason a committee felt that it
did not conform to that criteria, there could be an appeal
process built into the system. The appeal process could be to a
non-partisan, all party committee. It could be an appeal process
from the Speaker or an appeal process from House leaders. Maybe
that would be the vehicle to use to make sure that the bill
conformed to what we considered to be the criteria.
1230
However what I am saying is that anything is possible. I think
we all agree that members should have the right to have their
bills voted on. We all agree that there should be a move in that
direction.
The motion we have before us today says that the report should
be tabled before parliament by November 2001, and I will add
please. The committee is working toward that. The timeline may
well be a bit limited. As the member for Yorkton—Melville well
knows, the wheels of this place move somewhat slowly. Perhaps we
will have a break this summer, perhaps not. We may sit until
August, who knows. If that is the case, we can keep the
committee going. If not, the committee will break. Only coming
back in September does not leave a long time to have this report
tabled in the House.
Suffice it to say the member is right and the motion is right.
We will support it going forward. Hopefully an evolution of this
Chamber, this House, ultimately will come up with a solution
whereby all members will be happy. By the way, that solution may
last for only a short period of time because not all members are
happy with everything that is done. We may well have to look at
adjustments in the future.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that. I assure him
that I listened to every word he said. He and I are veterans of
the private members' process.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville for bringing this forward today. I think we
are having a very good debate. I would like to make a couple of
comments and then ask a question.
First, having experienced serve time, I guess, on the procedure
and House affairs subcommittee on private members' business, I
know that none of the members would want to leave the impression
that the decision on whether a bill is votable is a partisan
decision, because it is one of the few committees that does not
have a Liberal majority. It has one member from each party, a
chair who does not vote and it operates on consensus. I can say
from my experience that given the job we were assigned to do, I
thought it worked quite well. It was a case where the decision
on whether an item was votable or not was a decision that was
truly made by our peers.
At some point here I think some members might have been
misinformed in some of the debate on private members' business,
leaving the impression that this was a committee where the
Liberals had the majority and the iron hand of the whip was
dictating what was done. That simply was not the case.
The issue comes back to what the NDP House leader was talking
about. It comes down to a numbers game. If we do not expand the
hours for private members' business, and we do the math, we see
that we need to have some kind of filter.
When I first sat on that committee we had about 12 criteria,
which were known to members, and members' bills were vetted. When
members went to the Table for assistance in the drawing up of
their bills, they followed those criteria. When we changed those
criteria from 12 down to 4, thinking that we were making the
process more open, I think we threw the train off the rails. I
think that it then became a subjective process as opposed to an
objective process.
I intend to support the motion, but I will be on the receiving
end of this in the procedure and House affairs committee and I
think what we need is an expanded set of criteria. I think
everything that meets those criteria should be votable, but we
have to introduce some filters or the whole thing will break
down, even with the best of intentions.
I would be interested in the hon. member's comments.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is
absolutely correct. In fact I have with me a copy of the list of
criteria that were originally used. There were 11 criteria, by
the way, and they were very detailed. I was listening to every
word the hon. member said. That comes from a committee meeting,
Madam Speaker, and it is kind of an inside issue.
We used to follow 11 criteria. That has been changed to five,
whereby it does allow us certainly an ability to deal with those
private members' bills and motions that come forward and perhaps
do not fit or are perhaps, as the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona said, a little frivolous. I think we can
deal with that.
As for the private members' business itself, the member is
correct: where it is non-partisan it is dealt with by consensus.
The problem is that we must choose a number from a number, like
10 out of 30. Every time I sat at that table and we chose the
ten, the six, the five or the three that we had to plug the holes
with, every member sat around that table and said “They are all
worthy and I wish we could pick all of them”. We could not
because we only had three or four or five holes to fill and that
was all we could choose, but they were all worthy.
1235
If they are all worthy then let them be debated and let them be
voted on. That is what we are here for and that is what we are
trying to achieve. It is not simply that there are three, four
or five holes to fill. That should not be the case.
We do have consensus within the private members' business
committee itself as well within the procedure and House affairs
committee. Now we must try to work out the model itself so that
it can be workable.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I would like to
express my appreciation to the PCs for supporting making all
private members' business votable.
The question was raised as to why the Alliance did not put a
more significant motion forward, such as Bill C-15. The member
should realize that we have been addressing the Bill C-15 issue
every day in question period. As to his suggestion that I should
have brought forth the gun control issue as it relates to Bill
C-15, the PC member misses the point of this debate, that is,
unless we change the system we will be able to do very little to
change what happens in the House.
All of us in opposition have been frustrated by the government's
ability to block our initiatives. We could debate Bill C-15 all
day. We could bring all our concerns forward. It would probably
have little effect.
However because of the change we are proposing today, if we have
concerns we can bring them forward. That is the whole point of
this debate. If we have concerns about certain bills we have
very few mechanisms to address them, unless we change the way we
do things. That is what we are proposing here.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I as well am pleased, as my predecessor the member
for Brandon—Souris indicated, to take part in the debate. I
commend the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing
forward this matter.
I have the greatest respect for the work he does both in the
House and in the committee, but I must echo some of the remarks
of my colleague from the Conservative Party. There is an issue
that would have been very timely and that is the issue of Bill
C-15. I fully acknowledge what the hon. member has said, that
this matter has been brought forward, not only by his party but
by the Conservatives and perhaps by other parties as well. We
would very much have liked to see that piece of legislation
enacted, legislation that is so important to Canadians and that
would have such a profound effect on the law enforcement
community in terms of bolstering its ability to combat
pornography on the Internet, to combat stalking of children on
the Internet, to bring in legislation to protect police officers
from those who act violently towards them to try to disarm them.
All of this legislation and more is packed together in the form
of an omnibus bill. For those who are not familiar with that
term, it means broad legislation that brings together a number of
different elements, albeit under the criminal code. Some parties
in the House, including the party of the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville, take great umbrage at and have great
difficulty with the fact that cruelty to animals provisions and
firearms provisions are included in some of the changes proposed
by Bill C-15.
That is not to say that this type of legislation in and of
itself does not have to be examined. The cruelty provisions in
particular are such that we in the Conservative Party and others
would like to see them examined. That is why those provisions
should be given greater scrutiny at the committee. They should
be severed out along with the firearms legislation, which has no
connection whatsoever to stalking on the Internet or the
perpetration of child pornography.
That bill in its current form is difficult to accept from the
opposition's perspective, because we may be vehemently opposed to
certain elements of it and yet it is presented in such a way that
if we do not take all of the legislation part and parcel, if we
were to vote against it, we would be in the terrible position of
voting against 90% of what we believe in because of the 10% we
have difficulty with. It is akin to going to a yard sale, seeing
a box of items and wanting to buy 90% of those items. There are
a number of items that we do not want to have anything to do with
and yet we are told to take it all or take nothing.
What we are suggesting, and have suggested adamantly, is to
simply sever part of that bill, to sever out part of that
legislation, and we can completely pass the bill.
We could pass the bill without delay. It would go on to the
Senate and could come into being before we recess. Why are we in
such a hurry to leave? Some legislation we can pass very
quickly. MPs' pay is an example. We can put that through post
haste without any delays, yet this important legislation that
would impact on peoples' lives is going to languish on the order
paper over the summer.
1240
This supply day motion is on an important issue that is
receiving attention in a number of committees, not only in the
procedure and House affairs committee. We had an opportunity to
review this exact issue at a recent special committee that was
chaired by the Deputy Speaker of the House. This committee has
been meeting over the past number of months and has now tabled a
report which will be the subject of a debate in the House at some
point in the near future.
Unfortunately the clock is running again and the government is
champing at the bit to shut down the House of Commons. In fact
there was a motion moved today by the House leader for the
government. What that motion does, Madam Speaker, as you know,
is essentially limit any real examination or any real opportunity
on the part of the opposition to stand up and vote.
Mr. Derek Lee: Relevance.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I know the hon. member is not relevant,
but the point is that again an opportunity has been stripped away
from the opposition by the actions of the government House leader
in saying that there will be but a single vote, that the
government by way of a procedural manoeuvre will not allow
members of the House of Commons to stand up and express on behalf
of their constituents whether they support the government's
spending. The way in which this occurs is that essentially we
will be passing $160 billion plus of spending on behalf of the
Canadian people without the opportunity to stand up and vote
individually on those various departmental expenditures.
That is unprecedented. It is unacceptable. It is undemocratic.
However it is very much in keeping with the government's arrogant
attitude toward Canadians and toward the House of Commons. We
have repeatedly seen the government stripping away the abilities
that the hon. member seeks to point out in terms of private
members' business, in terms of debate, in terms of votes. We see
it time and time again.
I know there is another hon. member present here who is
concerned about the transparency of government. We have heard
very recently about the information commissioner and his concerns
that the public's access to information in the country is in fact
being severely curtailed. The ability to get at information
through access to information has been limited. We are being
told that there will be more information deemed off limits, there
will be lengthy delays when those requests are made and there
will be fees attached.
The current information commissioner and his predecessor as well
expressed themselves in a very open way at a forum initiated by
an hon. member opposite, the hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, who has taken an
extraordinary step as a backbench member of the government and
initiated the opportunity to review the access to information
procedures. He is being told by John Reid and others that the
government is in fact doing a great deal. In fact the headline
reads quite clearly: “Liberal leadership to blame for weakness
of access” to information. We are being told quite clearly that
the information law and the access will be weakened, that the
“privacy watchdog predicts more limits, higher fees and longer
waits” when it comes to this type of information.
All of this very much impacts on the rights and privileges of
members on behalf of their constituents. It impacts very
directly on the functioning of this place, these hallowed halls,
on our ability to do our jobs on behalf of our constituents.
More important, it affects Canadians. It affects the ability of
Canadians to have faith in this institution and to have faith in
the importance and the relevance of what it is that parliament is
supposed to do. In the bigger picture and in the grander scheme
of things this is what I think we should all be concerned with.
The most direct indication that public faith is waning and
failing in the country is the last election, when there were
record low turnouts. Those low turnouts speak volumes as to what
Canadians hold dear. Unfortunately it is not our parliamentary
system right now.
1245
That is why there is concern among members of our party and
others that we engage in a debate on private members' business.
It is an important part of the puzzle when it comes to improving
the ability of members of parliament to do important work on
behalf of their constituents, bring forward independent ideas,
draft legislation and have it voted upon. In relative terms that
is the way the stamp of approval is placed on initiatives from
both the opposition and government benches.
We have seen continual resistance to these types of initiatives.
We have seen continual attempts to strip away the powers and
ability of the opposition to express itself through the Chamber
and various other means.
We speak quite duplicitously about modernization and new ways in
which members of parliament can be empowered and made more
relevant. The real truth or the real upshot is that we are
seeing efforts by the government to strip those powers away.
Hon. members opposite may cackle and laugh because they are
sitting pretty. They know that if they vote in line with the
government and follow instructions from the PMO they will be
happy. They will rush home with their pay pocketed, and away
they will go back to their constituents to be quiet. That is
very much what the government wants. It wants silence from the
backbench and a muzzling of the opposition. That is what this is
all about.
Mr. Lynn Myers: What about silence now? Sit down.
Mr. Peter MacKay: The hon. member who is yapping now
knows nothing about silence. He could not be further from it. It
is unfortunate that we will not have an opportunity to debate
these important pieces of legislation before the House recesses.
It would have been the preference of the Progressive
Conservative Party to bring Bill C-15 forward, split it, pass it
through the Chamber and put it into law before the House
recesses. If we had an opportunity to discuss issues of health,
taxation and all sorts of other issues that impact on the private
sector we would be far—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I did allow a lot of
leeway in terms of the content of the member's speech. It is not
up to the Chair to censor what is said by the member, but points
of order are welcome.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
this is merely a question, not a point of order. When I look at
the reform of private members' business it strikes me that we run
a risk if we start tweaking one place and have unintended
consequences in others. Does the hon. member not think it would
be worthwhile in terms of the process of reform to address the
issue of committees?
In a system that is functioning at a high level, a lot of the
frustration people are expressing about private members' business
could probably be addressed at the committee. However for a
variety of reasons, and these are not reasons or rules that we
invented, the process seems to be that opposition amendments at
committee do not generally see the light of day. They therefore
turn up in one form or another in private members' business.
Does the hon. member not think it would be worthwhile to address
the issue, role, function and structure of committees and then
pick up what is left in private members' business? I feel we are
trying to solve two problems at once.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the member opposite. He makes an extremely good point.
Committee work is perhaps the most useful and productive because
it is often done away from the glare of cameras and in a more
non-partisan and productive fashion. However the member has hit
upon a number of elements of the committee that are most
important.
Reasoned, logical amendments are often brought forward by
opposition members but the committee structure is controlled very
much by the government. This is not particular to this
parliament. It has happened in previous administrations as well.
Parliamentary secretaries sit on the committees. The chairs are
hand picked by the government.
As a result the committee process becomes a microcosm or mini
version of what takes place in the House. Amendments, even those
which would improve a bill immensely, are turned down. They are
voted down blindly because the whip comes down at committee in
the same way as it does in the House of Commons.
1250
Anyone in the Chamber who has been affiliated with a party that
has been in government, as I have been, must take responsibility
for that. It was the Progressive Conservative Party which, after
having followed the instructions of the McGrath committee to take
parliamentary secretaries off committee, put them back.
We must recognize the error of our ways and admit that we do not
have clean hands. However if there is now a willingness to
change and improve the committee structure, we should by all
means do so.
I thank the hon. member for bringing the point forward. It is
an important issue in the greater context of how to improve the
functioning of the parliamentary system. The committee system is
absolutely critical to any type of reform.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to once again rise in the Chamber to
speak to the issue of parliamentary reform. I will be splitting
my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam, a riding whose name is sometimes tough to get one's
tongue around.
The motion today is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be
instructed to draft, and report to this House no later than
November 1, 2001, changes to the Standing Orders improving
procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business,
including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be
votable.
I suggest that we all take a serious look at what we are
attempting to accomplish here. I particularly appeal to
backbenchers of all parties. The constituents of their electoral
districts equally elected all 301 members of the House of Commons
but only a select few are ever really provided the opportunity to
enact legislation for the benefit of our citizens.
Ministers bring forth legislation from time to time. It all
gets passed as there is little substantial opportunity for
members to influence the government to accept suggestions or
amendments.
Backbenchers must overcome private members' business rules when
attempting to advance legislation of importance to themselves or
their constituents. To be successful they must have their names
drawn in a lottery and then be able to convince the subcommittee
in charge of private members' initiatives that the proposal
should be deemed a votable item. A member's bill or motion is
then given three hours of debate and voted upon.
I fully understand the limitations of time in this place to
debate private members' initiatives. Everyone with private
members' business on the order paper has an equal chance to be
drawn for debate, and that is just fine. Over the past few years
I have been successful a few times in winning the lottery, so to
speak, which is the way we refer to it around here. I have no
problem with the system up to that point.
As a footnote I should point out that I had a bill deemed
votable and passed by this place at second reading. I got the
bill to third reading in the last parliament but it died when the
election was called. I had to start the whole process again
when we returned for this parliament. There is some good news in
that the substance of my bill in its entirety was incorporated
into the recently passed Bill C-7. However I have also had bills
deemed non-votable.
The bill incorporated into Bill C-7 was the only time my name
was drawn in the lottery in the entire 36th parliament, in spite
of the fact that I had private members' business on the order
paper about 99% of the time.
After first being elected it took me a few days to get bills
drafted and on to the notice paper. I also fully appreciate that
well over 200 backbenchers are in competition for the lottery.
This goes to show how difficult it is to get one's name drawn.
Mine was drawn once in over three years. Some of my colleagues
have told me that they have never been drawn.
Getting drawn is just a small part of the battle. It seems
almost as difficult to subsequently get one's motion or bill
deemed votable. I have appeared three times before the
subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs. Each time I made a very similar case on the merits of
deeming my bill votable. In each case my legislation met all the
criteria to be considered votable according to House rules. I do
not know why the subcommittee approved one bill and disapproved
the other two.
I will not second guess the subcommittee. It must be difficult
for members to decide on the basis of a five to fifteen minute
examination with the presenting member of parliament.
1255
I expect that most, if not all, private members' initiatives
meet all the qualifications for being votable. Otherwise, why
would members even try?
While I will not question or second guess the subcommittee, I
will point out some of the problems or questions that arise from
a process that does little to enhance House procedure and
reputation.
First, the subcommittee has recently not been taking full
advantage of its powers to declare motions and bills votable. At
times the full complement of items is not deemed votable. The
subcommittee can deem up to 10 items votable but seems to seldom
go that far. It apparently keeps some space in reserve but that
does little to encourage members who are arguing for votability.
I had to wonder about that when my legislation was unsuccessful.
Why was my bill unsuccessful when there were vacancies on the
votable list? Does the committee determine votability on the
basis of party affiliation or favouritism toward certain members
of the House? I am not saying it does but the question must be
raised.
Is the subcommittee playing politics with private members'
business? We all know this whole place reeks of politics, so
that too is a fair question.
Private members' initiatives can cover a multitude of issues,
almost everything under the sun. I often wonder how committee
members can be up to speed on all issues of environment, finance,
justice, health, technology or what have you. How can members of
the subcommittee know the importance or relevance of all
initiatives presented to them on the basis of only a five minute
presentation by the sponsoring member and the opportunity to ask
a few questions? How can they weigh the benefits of one
presentation over another?
Members of parliament may be very capable individuals but I
wonder whether we are expecting the unreasonable when we task
them to decide on so many disparate issues.
These questions, concerns and others, I should imagine, raise
the question of why we do not make all items votable that are
selected through the lottery process. Private members' business
is the one avenue whereby all backbenchers can bring forth
legislation of importance to their constituents and to Canadians.
Why do we allow games to be played to obstruct private members
from successfully pursuing the process? If my experience is any
example, I was provided three hours to convince this place of the
importance of changing the young offenders' legislation. As I
said, I was successful.
In another case I was provided only one hour to convince this
place of the importance of changing the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act. I do not know if I was successful
because my proposal was deemed non-votable. The House did not
get the opportunity to deal with the matter. Recently some
collateral matters of that private members' bill have been
receiving a great deal of public attention.
We may all be criticized before long for sleeping at our posts
because the subcommittee has spoken for all of us on one issue.
In my other case I suggested that those who commit multiple
motor vehicle thefts should face more serious consequences. I
specifically attempted to attack what is becoming more and more
an organized crime activity. Once again the subcommittee
deprived this place of the chance to consider the matter.
I will now briefly respond to skeptics who may think I am trying
to mislead or entrap others into agreeing with my arguments.
Deeming all items votable would not end the matter. This place
would still have the opportunity to vote on each and every issue.
For various reasons we all support or oppose private members'
proposals. There is nothing wrong with that. If we are forced
to make difficult decisions that is good as well. If we are to
be paid at the level of senior executives we should expect to be
forced to earn our keep, so to speak.
When decisions concern what is best for the citizens of the
country rather than what is best politically, they become much
easier and simpler to justify. It is that type of choice we
should be considering with this motion.
Lastly, the motion we are debating today merely proposes that
the issue be sent to committee for further review. We are not
making the final determination today. We are sending the matter
on for more detailed and reasoned analysis. It is in the
interest of all members of parliament to improve our rules so our
work may be more beneficial to citizens. That is, after all, why
we are here.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise
and speak to this subject. I compliment endlessly my colleague
for Yorkton—Melville for having brought it up. It is a
wonderful topic.
I was first elected in November of last year, so this is my
first term in the Chamber. Unlike my hon. colleagues from Surrey
North and Elk Island, I have had the pleasure of having private
members' bills drawn twice in the last five months.
An hon. member: Buy a lottery ticket.
Mr. James Moore: Precisely, so I have hit headlong into
this.
1300
I am a conservative person and conservatives by nature are
cynical people. I subscribe to what George Will calls the “Ohio
in 1895 Theory of History”, so named because in Ohio in 1895
there were precisely two cars in the entire state and one day
they collided. That is a true fact. Therefore, as a
conservative, I am temperamentally inclined to worry and believe
the worst. However I must say that I have not been disappointed
with private members' business. I was quite excited when my first
private member's motion was drawn.
When we are campaigning during an election we think people will
want to talk about the big issues and the ideological divide
between parties. However, when we get to the doorstep and
actually talk to people face to face, we realize that the issues
they are most concerned with are the bread and butter issues,
such as how much money they have in their pockets and whether
they will be protected when they go to the park with their kids
in the evening. These are the core issues.
In my constituency one of those issues was leaky condos. I
drafted a private member's bill, put it in the pool and it was
drawn and brought to the House. I was very disappointed when I
discovered it was deemed non-votable, as were the vast majority
of my constituents.
However, there is a broader issue here. At the beginning of all
political philosophy there is a stark question that is asked: Who
shall rule? There are three basic answers, the first being, a
few or many. In a liberal representative democracy, the answer
to that question is that the many shall rule but they shall do so
through the few.
In the greatest single essay on representative politics,
Federalist No. 10, James Madison said that representation,
the delegation of decision making to a small number of citizens
elected by the rest, is supposed to define and enlarge the public
views.
As Harvey Mansfield, a professor of government at Harvard
University says, “the function of representation is to add
reason to popular will”.
As members of parliament, our delicate task is to listen to the
wants and needs of our constituents. Then it is to deliberate
over the longings and desires of our constituents and decide how
to advance those views as effectively as possible while acting in
concert with our campaign commitments, party principles and
priorities, and our private consciences.
Once we have arrived at the point where we are prepared to act,
members of parliament, other than party leaders and cabinet
ministers, have very few legislative tools at their disposal. One
legislative mechanism that we do have is the ability to draft
private members' bills and motions which may be drawn by lottery
to be brought to the House.
In our current parliamentary mode, because our institutions are
so out of date, because of our warped view of what is supposed to
be competitive federalism and because it is so disorganized,
private members' business for members of parliament is a key
element for citizens to feel that their representatives can
represent their interests, or, if they represent their own
personal interests they can be held accountable at the next
campaign.
I speak from the prerogative of advancing the two different
forms of federalism that can be represented by members of
parliament in the House. One paradigm is the Edmund Burke model,
which is to say that members of parliament come to Ottawa to pass
judgment.
The second view is that members of parliament come to Ottawa to
be bugles for their constituents back home. It is a very
different paradigm and I want to refresh the House on that
difference.
On November 3, 1774, Edmund Burke delivered a thank-you speech
to some people who, upon hearing it, may have wished they had not
done what he was thanking them for. They had just elected him to
Parliament. His speech was to the voters of the bustling
commercial city of Bristol. After felicitously expressing his
gratitude, he proceeded to, as it were, step back and put some
distance between himself and those who had embraced him. He
said, “I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a
topic” then on many minds.
He told them that he rejected the popular theory that a
representative should feel bound by “instructions” issued by
his constituents concerning how he should vote in Parliament.
This doctrine, he said, is incompatible with the duty of a
representative...a representative should “live in the strictest
union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved
communication with his constituents”. But all he was saying was
that a representative should hear, understand and empathize with
his constituents. “Their wishes ought to have great weight with
him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted
attention.” But, he said, a representative does not owe
obedience. He owes something more than his “industry”. He
owes his “judgment”.
And not just his judgment about how best to achieve what his
constituents say they want. No, a representative is duty-bound
to exercise his judgment about ends as well as means. His job is
not just to help constituents get what they want; he also is
supposed to help them want what they ought to want.
Burke was taking issue with something that had been said to
Bristol voters by another man they had just elected, a man more
pliable to them. Burke noted, “My worthy colleague says his
will ought to be subservient to yours.” Burke tried to soften
the blow of his disagreement by saying that if government were a
mere matter of willfulness, an endless clash of wills, then
“yours, without question, ought to be superior.” “But
government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment,
and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that in which
the determination precedes the discussion, in which one set of
men deliberate and another decide, and where those who form the
conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who
hear the arguments?”
They were, he said, sending him to a capital, but not a foreign
capital. He was going to Parliament, not to “a congress
of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which
interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against
other agents and advocates.” He should not be guided by merely
“local purposes” or “local prejudices.” “Parliament,” he
said, “is a deliberative assembly.”
1305
Many members of parliament come to the House with the view that
they are here to deliberate, act and pass judgment on what they
think is in the best interest of the whole country and of their
constituents.
There is an alternative view, a more popular representative
view. Mr. Trudeau had this view and many members of the official
opposition have had this view for many years, that their primary
responsibility is to come to Ottawa to represent primarily the
views of the constituents back home as they best determine what
that view is.
The problem with our current system of governance in Canada is
that because the Senate is so detached from its responsibility of
representing regional interests, and because the Governor General
is not a national unifying figure because she is not given a
mandate through the electoral process, the House of Commons is
bound by the responsibility to represent the private interests of
individual constituents, the personal views of members of
parliament, the national aspirations of a grand vision for the
whole country and the regional needs, desires and differences
among the federation.
It is very difficult for individual members of parliament to
fulfil all those tasks within what is supposed to be a
competitive federalist model. We have been handcuffed into that
because of the outdated institutions of the Senate and, in my
view, of the Governor General, and the fact that this House of
Commons is more often than not a rubber stamp.
I was faced with this on May 9 when my private member's motion
was debated in the House. When I was standing and speaking to my
non-votable motion, there were so few members in the House that I
half expected tumbleweeds to blow through because it was so
poorly attended. That is a reality. If there is not going to be
a vote, then private members' business debates on motions and
bills mean nothing. We are wasting, whatever it costs, about
$100,000 an hour, to keep this institution running, and there is
no point at the end of the line for having done that.
Canadians should know that once a member puts his or her private
member's bill or motion into a pool it is drawn. The member then
has to appear before a committee. The committee is known as the
subcommittee on private members' business of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whose chair must have
the largest business card in the history of western civilization.
In order to make a private member's bill votable, the bill must
meet five criteria, as the member for Brandon—Souris mentioned,
and these criteria are entirely subjective. The third criteria
states that bills and motions should concern matters of
significant public interest.
In order to get a private member's bill or motion made votable,
it must meet all five criteria. The committee, which is
dominated by the government, must give unanimous consent in order
to make a bill votable. One of those criteria, that bills and
motions should concern matters of significant public interest, is
defined by whom?
As I said, in the last campaign people told me that they wanted
me to go to Ottawa and address the issue of leaky condos because
it was a significant local issue affecting over 10,000 people, so
I did that. I drafted a private member's bill and was lucky to
have it drawn. I then went to a committee where it had to be
unanimous that my motion be made votable, and one of the criteria
was that bills and motions should concern matters of significant
public interest. My issue was of relevance only to the lower
mainland of British Columbia. There was not one single British
Columbian on that committee. How would members of that committee
know if they do not live with the constituents who are impacted
by this issue?
I therefore emphatically support the motion and I am encouraged
that it will pass tonight. It is a step in the right direction.
It should have happened a long time ago, and passing it will send
the right message that we are undertaking the first steps of
modernizing this institution.
1310
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Governmrnt Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I like the member's enthusiasm. He has raised an important issue
on behalf of his constituents. It is a file that I am familiar
with. A member would certainly want to have local issues,
particularly regional or issues that are not necessarily
national, brought to the fore with the ultimate objective of
making sure the government becomes aware and that action is being
taken.
I would ask the member to comment on the problem that sometimes
we have issues that are urgent in nature which require action in
months. Having been a parliamentarian since 1993 I have had a
number of bills and motions before the House, a couple of which
have been votable. The process takes an awful long time.
By the time a bill or motion is drawn, goes through the process
of getting votability and getting on the list, we get our first
hour of debate. We wait 30 sitting days to get the second
sitting hour and another 30 days for the third hour and a vote.
Then it goes to committee. I actually had a bill that was tied
up in the process for almost two years.
Does the member think we should be sensitive to making private
members' items more relevant to long term policy rather than
short term issues?
Mr. James Moore: Madam Speaker, the two words in a
democracy that constituents hate to hear most are the ones I will
use. It depends. If I look at the sweep of private members'
bills and motions that I have read and frankly the ones I have
drafted, they are largely non-partisan bills that affect people
locally. I keep raising the leaky condo issue. It is not a
partisan issue. One cannot take a clear position and say that it
is driven by ideological concern. Local issues that are an
urgent need can be brought forward.
My second private member's motion that was drawn was supposed to
be debated on June 22. It has been moved back to the fall. It
would establish a law that would make it impermissible for the
Prime Minister to appoint senators for provinces that have Senate
election laws.
It is not time sensitive in the relative context like the
droughts in Alberta or the water issue in North Battleford,
Saskatchewan. If it were established by the committee after this
motion is passed and the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster
asked me if we could swap slots, that would be an appropriate
consideration the committee should take into account.
I caution that private members' bills and motions should have a
local emphasis. They should be local concerns. Some of the
issues I have raised in the private members' bills I have
drafted, including the one that was drawn, are not issues of
concern to Mississauga.
Private members' bills are drawn and deemed votable. What
frustrates a lot of us in the opposition, and I know it
frustrates the hon. member as well, is that some private members'
bills become votable. The member for Notre-Dame-de-
Grâce—Lachine had a private member's bill to create a
parliamentary poet laureate. It was drawn and deemed votable.
Meanwhile, 10,000 of my constituents are being taxed on repairs
to their homes that are no fault of their own.
The member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey had a private
member's bill in the last parliament in which he asked the House
to consider the creation and the designation of a national horse.
That was deemed votable. Meanwhile, private members' bills and
motions to have an elected Senate or to give GST relief to leaky
condo owners were deemed non-votable.
The examples are endless. There is another one from the Bloc
Quebecois that asked the House of Commons to call upon the
Governor General to ask London to give an official apology to
Acadians from 250 years ago. I as a member of parliament from
British Columbia, and there is not an Acadian within an eight
hour flight of where I live, was in the House speaking to that.
If that is an issue of concern for that member, I have to respect
that. It has to be debated and brought forward.
1315
In British Columbia we are in a particular predicament. We have
six senators and a vacancy. Two other senators have said they
want to stand for election. We have only six senators for our
province.
In my constituency I represent 135,000 people. It is the third
largest constituency in the country. The province of Prince
Edward Island has eight representatives for the one, myself, in
British Columbia. Because of that individual members of
parliament like myself should have the authority to bring forward
bills of local interest and get them on the national stage
because sometimes the government will not.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
should point out to begin with that I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Scarborough East.
I rise to speak to the official opposition motion:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be
instructed to draft, and report to this House no later than
November 1, 2001, changes to the Standing Orders improving
procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business,
including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be
votable.
Since the beginning of this parliament six months ago, close to
200 private members' motions or bills have been introduced in the
House, which is evidence of the importance MPs attach to these
initiatives. As we are all aware, the private members' business
subcommittee selects at random 30 of these items, which are then
entered on the list of priorities for debate in the House. At
the present time, the standing orders allow a maximum of ten of
these to be votable.
Let us point out that contrary to what people might think the
work of the subcommittee is carried out in a totally independent
manner and the government is not in any way involved.
To have all proposals votable presents certain advantages. The
vote enables members to officially support or not support a
proposal. This way any doubts members may have on the objectivity
of the members of the private members' business subcommittee are
eliminated. To some members, this could increase parliament's
usefulness in the eyes of the public and give it a more
democratic face.
As only ten proposals can be voted on, excellent proposals may
be left by the wayside. While the simple fact of raising a
question is enough in certain cases, members more often want the
House to decide. That way we know more clearly what the House
thinks of a question.
There are many disadvantages, however. The number of motions
and bills put before the House must manifestly be reduced, unless
other changes are made to reduce the number of hours spent in
debate. The effect could be to reduce the importance given to
each, so that the more important ones currently voted on could
receive less attention.
In the opinion of the McGrath committee, mandating a committee
of MPs to choose votable motions and bills was a fair and just
way to proceed. If all proposals are voted on, members will lose
the latitude they enjoy at the moment. They may in some cases
want the House to debate a matter without holding a vote. They
will not have this option anymore.
In my opinion, the way the House manages private members'
business is based on two broad principles. First, members
themselves run the process; the government is not involved in it
in any way. Second, the members are free to manage their
business as they see fit.
I agree with the members who feel that the vote is important,
but does the best solution consist in making all items votable?
Such a measure would ultimately create other problems for
members.
Today, the opposition is suggesting that the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs take a closer look at these issues
and submit its report no later than November 1, 2001, including a
workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable. This
suggestion is perfectly appropriate.
1320
The committee has been reviewing these issues for many years,
thus making it the guarantor of the fairness of the rules
relating to private members' business, which are always very
complex, and giving it a great deal of expertise in this area.
In recent years, the committee has made numerous recommendations
to improve the management of private members' business and
strengthen the rules that serve members of parliament.
I expect the committee to determine whether all items should be
votable and to look at alternatives, such as increasing the
number of votable items, allowing a larger number of bills to be
referred to a committee, or proposing other means to allow
members to submit to the House issues that are of interest to
their constituents and to themselves.
I fully support today's motion and I am anxiously awaiting the
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague on this side of the
House. I will make a comment with respect to his speech and use
my remarks as a vehicle to address comments which have been made
erroneously by some hon. members debating today.
The hon. member who just spoke is a member of the subcommittee
on private members' business. I am looking at the Hansard
for Friday, June 1, which indicates the membership of the various
committees. I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me,
since he is a member of the committee, that there are six members
on the committee of whom two are Liberals and four are opposition
members.
A number of speakers, and certainly the most recent speaker,
have indicated that the subcommittee on private members' business
is dominated by Liberals. I would like the record to clearly
show, and the Canadian people to know, that only one-third of the
members of the subcommittee on private members' business are
Liberals and two-thirds are opposition members. Would the hon.
member agree that what I have just said is factual?
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Madam Speaker, my colleague is right
in stating that I am a member of the subcommittee. He is also
right in stating that there are two Liberals among the membership
of the committee. He is also very right in assuming that it is
not a situation where Liberal members dominate the committee. It
is the contrary in the sense that there are two Liberals and four
non-Liberals.
I am not at liberty to divulge details of how we deliberate in
camera at the subcommittee. However I do not think anyone needs
much knowledge in mathematics to realize that two versus four
does not win very strongly.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
this will probably be my last opportunity to wish you well during
the summer. I hope all members have a relaxing summer,
notwithstanding what some of our constituents might think.
The reason for the motion is quite simple. A lot of members in
the House are pretty frustrated with the whole issue of private
members' business. I dare say that the frustration opposition
members have expressed is probably matched by the frustration
government backbench members feel. Indeed I dare say that
certain ministers feel somewhat frustrated in their ability to
move departmental legislation forward.
1325
The reason is that government is quite a large entity. It takes
a great deal of willpower on the part of individual members of
parliament, or indeed ministers, to move a government on items of
legislation no matter how seemingly simple or obviously correct
they may be. We had an example of that just last week.
The motion is well framed. It speaks to a frustration that
exists in the House as to the relevance members feel in terms of
their role here.
Usually when a bill comes forward the government's easiest
response is to say no. It may say the bill would create too many
complications. The reasons it gives are sometimes devoid of
logic or common sense, but no is the easiest answer. That in
turn creates an atmosphere of exasperation which spills over into
cheap politics. We say nasty things about one side and it says
nasty things about us.
I will break out some of the ideas that are presently on the
table and indicate why I think some of the problems exist. One
of the problems we must deal with is the dumb idea. I say with
the greatest respect that some of the ideas that go through the
House affairs and procedure committee are just plain dumb and
should not see the light of day.
Some ideas are awkward and create difficulties for the
government. That makes life for us on the government backbench
somewhat more difficult. I will use the illustration of the
private member's bill with respect to tools for mechanics. On
the face of it, who could oppose such a bill? It seemed
plausible and sensible so why would we not support a bill of that
nature?
The government took something of an ambiguous position on that
bill and suggested in the end that the bill would favour one
class of Canadian taxpayer over another and was therefore not a
good thing to do. It then sought to expand the category of
person who would benefit from the bill.
Such ideas can also bring us into difficulty on this side
because votable motions such as that cost the government moneys
in terms of credits or deductions. They therefore limit
government revenues and reduce the government's ability to move
in other areas it might see as more preferable.
For members opposite that is of somewhat less concern, but for
those on this side of the House it is of more concern. That is
why I think members on both sides tend to feel frustration. There
are no real consequences when a problematic motion goes through
the House, costs the government money and leaves it in a very
awkward situation.
The question is always how members on both sides of the House
will take responsibility for what they are doing. As I say, for
members opposite there are no serious consequences. For members
on this side, however, there are serious consequences.
Ultimately we end up in a situation where we are intellectually
lazy and do not weigh all the benefits. When we are uninformed
we frankly tend to make poor decisions.
I appreciate that the so-called Kilger commission has done some
work on this. Every member believes that his or her ideas are
the best and should be votable. My idea of course is also quite
brilliant and should be votable. I am going through a level of
frustration right now with my bill before the committee. I have
basically five minutes to convince some of my colleagues that my
bill should be votable.
1330
My bill is very simple. It deals with fire safe cigarettes. The
industry has known for years how to make cigarette paper less
porous and tobacco less dense, the result of which is a fire safe
cigarette. If it is dropped on furniture it meets certain
flammability tests and the whole place does not burn down. The
irony is that had that legislation been in place a number of
years ago this building would not have burned down.
Such legislation has been adopted by New York state unanimously
so that cigarettes cannot be manufactured, sold or distributed in
that state without meeting certain flammability standards.
The response I get from the minister and the government is that
we cannot do it for a variety of unacceptable reasons. Needless
to say, I think my idea is quite brilliant, and I have unanimous
consent from those behind the curtains. The chance of my bill
actually seeing the light of day is pretty remote.
That is the frustration that all of us face. Setting aside dumb
ideas and setting aside the problematic ones, even very good
ideas have some difficulty getting out of committee and on to the
floor of the House to be debated in some sort of reasonable
fashion.
In the way the system is presently structured the determination
of votability is based on things that quite frankly are
irrelevant to the bill. We end up lapsing into some sort of
political speak, whereby members on the government side do not
worry about embarrassing the government and members opposite
worry that the only good thing is an embarrassed government.
My bill will have some difficulties getting out of committee,
not on the basis of whether it is a brilliant bill, a good bill
or a bad bill, but on the basis of irrelevant political
considerations.
That kind of thing turns Canadians off. They send us here and
expect us to be legislators. They have good reason to question
how we can be legislators if we set up a system of inertia which
prevents good ideas bubbling up and being made available for the
benefit of all Canadians.
Hon. members will be considering the motion, which I think is
supportable. As it goes forward and returns to consideration by
committee, the system should be given some modification. One
possible modification might be that each member, once during the
life of a parliament, gets an opportunity to insist that his or
her bill be votable regardless of whether the committee thinks it
should be votable.
It does not mean that members cannot have other bills before
committee. It does not mean they cannot argue before committee
that they be votable, but they have the opportunity to decide
unilaterally.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the member opposite. It is
interesting to hear today a number of backbench Liberals giving
an indication that they will support the motion. I thank the
member for his speech, for his sentiments, and for his tangible
support later on today.
If private members bring forward motions pertaining to the
wishes of their constituents, does he have any fears that it
could potentially bring them into conflict with their party and
with loyalty to their party, which Liberals opposite have been
very good at showing at various times throughout the seven years
I have been observing it?
To a fault they follow their party leadership.
1335
If all private members' business becomes votable, does he see a
danger that the government would begin imposing party discipline
on private members' business and undo the good that has come in
the last number of years where private members' business has been
deemed a free vote by all parties of the House?
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, first of all let me deal
with the member's reference to the wishes of the constituents.
Some ideas that I receive from my constituents frankly should not
see the light of day as they are awful. I am elected as a member
to exercise judgment. There are ideas, however, that should see
the light of day and that I should be able to advocate.
For a government member the equation becomes somewhat more
difficult because, first, we have to deal with the issue of
confidence. When dealing with the issue of confidence clearly a
government member cannot be seen to be voting against the
government on a matter of budget or money bills. It is certainly
within the narrow confines of a budget and possibly even extended
to money bills.
The second difficulty is the area of platform. If my party or
the member's party ran on a platform and a motion is inconsistent
with the platform, I would say that government members would have
difficulty.
The third is the throne speech. If an initiative is not
consistent with the throne speech, I would say a government
member would have some difficulty supporting the initiative.
Having said all of that, we would have to argue a government
member into having a whipped vote at that point.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central
to participate in the debate on the Canadian Alliance supply day
motion asking that all items of private members' business votable
in the House. It reads:
The House does not attach any great importance to private
members' business as it is now organized. This is evident from
the fact that members are seldom greatly concerned to claim the
priorities they have drawn in the ballot governing the use of
private members' time, and this is largely because private
members' bills and motions rarely come to a vote.
This was the observation of the McGrath committee in June 1985.
It is as true or even worse today. Of the private members' bills
and motions introduced in the first session of the 36th
parliament less than 16% were drawn and under 4% were votable. In
the second session, just 9% were drawn and less than 3% were
votable.
In the 37th parliament 8% of private members' bills and
motions were drawn and only 1.6% were votable. That is less than
2 out of 100 votable items. The ratio of votable private
members' bills for the Canadian Alliance is so far one-third of
the average of the House in the current session.
There is certainly something wrong. This emphasizes a dire need
for reform of the House of Commons to restore to private members
an effective legislative function, to give them a meaningful role
in the formation of public policy, and to restore the House of
Commons to its rightful place in the Canadian political process.
Some years ago it used to be said that members of parliament
were nobodies outside the House of Commons. Under the arrogant
Liberal government, members of parliament are nobodies inside the
House. MPs are rubber stamps and backbench MPs are used as pawns
by the Prime Minister's Office where the power is concentrated.
As a result, members of parliament are frustrated and many lack
morale and initiative.
Some hon. members: Are you talking about Liberals?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes, backbench MPs. The Liberals
curtail, cut off and close debate. They vote for time allocation
more often than ever before.
There are no more free votes in the House, particularly on the
government side. I bet that sometimes backbenchers do not even
know what they are voting on. Committees are a farce and a
partisan exercise to keep backbenchers busy. Their priorities
are often wrong and their deliberations become good for nothing
exercises.
1340
Question period has become a circus. Some ministers are
consistently in the habit of rejecting even the preamble to
legitimate opposition questions. There are no answers given to
legitimate and serious questions. Perhaps it is true to its
name; it is only a question period and not a question and answer
period. It should actually be called the accountability period.
I have tabled Motion No. 291 on the order paper calling for the
name change. I hope with a name change that the nature of
question period will also change.
Citizens work hard to collect thousands of signatures on
petitions highlighting important issues and demanding the
government's attention. After the petitions are tabled in the
House they gather dust on a shelf rather than get a government
response.
Debates have become a joke. Decisions are already made before a
debate even commences. Rarely is there a quorum during a debate
in the House. Sometimes there are more pages than members in the
House. What good are take note debates without a vote?
The officers of the House are regularly snubbed by the Prime
Minister's Office, including the auditor general, privacy
commissioner, chief actuary, information commissioner and so on.
The Prime Minister has failed to hold his ministers accountable,
even after boondoggles and serious unfounded allegations about
things like cross burnings. It is no wonder that the public's
perception of the integrity and credibility of politicians is so
low and that voter turnout has fallen in recent elections.
The Canadian Alliance strongly advocates parliamentary reform
and private members' business is one of the serious issues. The
Canadian Alliance wanted every MP to have at least one votable
item per session but the NDP opposed it.
Here we are today debating the motion. We are continuing our
battle with the arrogant Liberal government to empower members of
parliament but it will not. Since I have been a member of
parliament I have seen my party dragging the government along
while it kicks and screams. The Liberals are dragging their feet
on this issue. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk.
Private members' hour occurs every day. I have spoken on many
private members' business items. It is the purest form for MPs,
representing their constituents, to truly speak on behalf of
their constituents in an attempt to contribute to the legislative
process.
MPs work hard with stakeholders to prepare their bills and
motions. The legislative branch of the House is involved in
getting the bills drafted, translated and printed. Members and
their constituents have high hopes and expectations from a bill
or a motion.
I would like to give an analogy. When a baby cries, a mother
sometimes gives the baby a pacifier. The baby starts working at
the pacifier with expectations that something will come out of
it. The baby actually gets nothing, even after a lot of work.
Eventually the baby shuts up and remains busy. After some time,
both the mother and the baby understand each other's role and, as
a routine, both become habituated to the exercise.
This is exactly what happens with private members' business. It
is an exercise to shut members up and keep them busy for some
time with false hopes. It becomes a vain exercise with both the
government and the members knowing their roles and what outcome
to expect.
1345
Veteran MPs know the usual outcome. They have a lower standard
of expectation and aim for highlighting issues just for publicity
purposes. This can bring media attention to some of the issues.
That is the best outcome to be expected from private members'
business rather than it becoming a law. The government keeps
members busy and this bars them from lobbying the government.
There is no use for private members' business unless it is
votable, adopted in the House and some concrete action is taken
as an outcome. That is why the official opposition is trying to
get the government to realize this and help change the procedure.
We are here to make laws. We are legislators. We should be
working on legislation and voting on legislation. When an MP
goes to the trouble of working the legal beagles in the House to
the point where he or she develops a private member's bill, the
bill deserves debate and a vote.
When was the last time a private member's bill was passed?
Rarely, hardly ever. In the last parliament I submitted sixteen
different private members' items, four of which were bills. I
even had two motions for the production of papers. So far during
this parliament I have half a dozen motions and almost as many
bills prepared.
However I am not optimistic about having the government debate
and vote on any of the items that are important to the people of
Surrey Central. The Liberals will try to ensure that the voices
of Surrey Central and other members in the House are muted. My
whistleblower bill cannot even get to debate stage.
The process is very disappointing. The Liberal chair of the
subcommittee has control. Unanimous consent or unanimous
agreement has to be reached before an item can become votable. It
does not work. Members on both sides of the House are
frustrated.
We are looking forward to making meaningful change in the House.
One of the initiatives in that change is that private members'
items have to be votable. There is no use debating when we
cannot vote.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour to be able to enter into this important
debate. I was curiously interested in the comments of other
members who thought that we as official opposition would have
used this occasion, the last supply day motion before summertime
when we go to work in our ridings, for a substantial debate on
some big issue.
One of the issues listed was the splitting of Bill C-15 into its
component parts so that we could deal with problems important to
Canadians and to parliamentarians in a reasonable manner. Those
problems could be solved instead of playing political games with
them as the Minister of Justice is prone to do. Other issues
were mentioned as well.
I have a reasonable response to that charge. With the passage
of this bill I hope it will do something very important for
parliament so that the work of members will be enhanced and all
those problems will have another avenue in which they can be
addressed through private members' business.
The way private members' business is run right now is
disgraceful. We spend many days in the House. Today is the
77th sitting day of the House since the election. During that
time we have spent most of the time debating government bills but
some time on supply day motions and some time on private members'
business.
1350
As a member who spends a lot of time in the House paying
attention to what goes on here, I have observed that probably the
best ideas and the ones that are most relevant to ordinary
citizens come from private members' business.
Many times the government brings forward legislation which
obviously is designed simply to facilitate the work of government
bureaucrats. Ideas bubble up through the departments to the
minister. The minister says to go ahead and draft a bill to be
presented in the House. With the government having a majority,
we go through the motions of debating it but it is automatically
passed. Many of those things are administrative in nature.
Then there are others where frankly the government totally
misses the boat on the aspirations of ordinary Canadians with
respect to everything from taxes to the justice system, to the
way parliament works.
The debate we have brought forward today will further the work
of parliament. Hopefully it will enable us as parliamentarians
to do a much better job than we have been able to do because of
the restrictions placed upon us.
Members of the public who may be watching television today
should know that private members' business is not a very high
priority of the government. As a matter of fact, the present
standing orders relegate private members' business to the least
desirable hours of the day.
On Monday it is the first item, the assumption being that it is
difficult for members to get back here after having been in their
ridings on the weekend. Thus private members' business is
considered while there is nobody here. I resent that because it
is very important. Members should be here to hear the arguments
and the debates.
On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday private members' business is
taken up in the very last hour of the day when members are off to
receptions and other meetings. They are tired and finished for
the day, so there is not a very great number of members who pay
attention to private members' business on Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday.
On Friday it takes place again in the very last hour of sitting.
That is the day when anyone who happens to be left in Ottawa, not
having gone home on Thursday, might be here for a debate. In any
case members are eager to go and most of them are totally unaware
of private members' business.
I have made it a point to pay attention every day to the goings
on in the House, including private members' business. As I have
said, my observation is that the best ideas, the most relevant to
Canadians, are brought forward by ordinary members who go to
their ridings on the weekends. During the weeks when we are able
to meet with our constituents we get ideas and bring them back as
private members' business.
I have an issue which I have not yet formulated a private
member's bill on. I do not know whether there is any point. Not
long ago a person said that he had to quit his job to look after
his ailing wife. If it were his handicapped child he would get a
tax credit, but because he is doing it for his wife there is no
tax credit. Would that not be a perfect private member's bill?
We could include a recognition that some people have to do this
for members of their family who are ill.
I did a little mathematics, as I am prone to do. I looked at
the total number of bills and motions introduced during the time
I have been in parliament. I was first elected in the fall of
1993. Since then, according to the numbers I was given, there
have been 4,136 private members' bills and motions introduced.
Some of them were repeats. Many bills and motions are prepared
which are never selected in the random draw, so members
reintroduce them after prorogation of the House or after an
election. Of those 4,136 private members' bills, only 11.8% were
selected in the random draw.
1355
I would like to say something about the random draw. When I was
a kid at camp many years ago we had a rule. When we went for
meals no one was allowed seconds until everyone had a first. I
think we should use that principle here.
I have been here since 1993. I have had private members' bills
in the hopper. My name has been there but I was not one of the
lucky ones to have my name drawn. Therefore I have not been able
to put forward a private member's bill.
I propose that the system should be changed. At some point in
time all currently elected members of parliament should be put on
a random order list. I would be willing to provide the
computerized process to do that, if necessary. Everyone would be
on the list and no one would get back on it until he or she gets
to the bottom. It would go sequentially.
If we are interrupted by an election or there are members that
resign for some other reason, their names would be taken off the
list and be replaced by other members' names being added to the bottom
of the list as they are elected. I would like very much to
support that notion.
I also believe that every bill should be votable. I do not have
the fear of some that the House of Commons will become irrelevant
or that members will waste their time. If we had a rule that
each member could only have one bill or motion before all other
members have had one, we could be assured that no member would
waste that opportunity. They would put up their very best bill,
their very best motion, to have it debated and voted upon. If it
is a dumb motion or dumb bill the House would rule on it and it
would be defeated, provided that we have a free vote on such
things.
I have another concern. If every bill is votable I fear the
government will start interfering and will start pushing party
discipline on the outcome of the votes on private members'
business. Some private members' bills could serve to be a slight
embarrassment to the government.
I have used up my speaking time, but I look forward to questions
and comments which I am sure will come after question period
today.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ABDUL GILL
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perseverance and dedication to one's job pays off for those who
pursue their quest. Forty-two year old Abdul Gill of Halifax
just recently became one of the Canadian air force's newest and
oldest recruits, and certainly a very talented one.
Originally from Pakistan, Mr. Gill has experienced flying MiGs
and Mirage fighter jets both as a pilot and as an instructor. Now
he wants to sit in the cockpit of one of the Canadian F-18s.
Mr. Gill moved to Canada nine years ago and ran a corner store
and gas station. He recently finished officer boot camp. While
he knows he could be posted anywhere in the Canadian armed
forces, flying remains his job of choice. Mr. Gill is an example
to all of us who have a goal and a drive to succeed.
I congratulate Mr. Gill on successfully completing his officer
training and wish him every success in becoming one of Canada's
proud fighter pilots.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, when the price of gas goes up the government's gas tax
revenues go up as well because of the 7% GST that is on top of
the cost of gas and the other excise taxes.
We are going into a long, hot summer of rising gasoline prices.
The federal government does not need the co-operation of the
provinces to eliminate the GST on gas. The government can help
reduce gas prices but it has not.
In fact an analysis has shown that if it were not for gas taxes
Canada would have cheaper gas than the United States, but this
federal government refuses to act. I call upon the Minister of
Finance to make a difference in gas prices by removing its GST
component.
* * *
GARY NORTON
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to the wonderful volunteer efforts of Mr.
Gary Norton of Burlington.
1400
Mr. Norton went on two CESO assignments with the Central Reserve
Bank of Peru. During his first visit, he assisted in the
creation of a new statistics system and recommended that the bank
install a project manager to oversee its successful
implementation. Using his expertise of payment systems from
Canada and Peru, Mr. Norton authored a report that will allow the
existing Peruvian system to improve and evolve to meet Peru's
statistical needs into the future.
In this International Year of the Volunteer, volunteers like
Gary Norton are positive role models in communities around the
world. Mr. Norton's contribution to the Central Reserve Bank of
Peru demonstrates the best of Canadian values. His wealth of
experience and generous spirit make him an exemplary grassroots
ambassador.
I ask all my colleagues to please join the friends and family of
Gary Norton in commending him on his impressive accomplishments
in Peru.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday at the smog summit in Toronto, the Minister of
Transport announced a commuter rail strategy to help increase
services in the areas of Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa.
I am both excited and delighted in terms of what this
announcement means for my riding in Nepean—Carleton. Starting
the Ottawa-Montreal service from south Nepean or Barrhaven means
that both commuters and travellers to Montreal will enjoy a new
service and new facilities. It is expected that a new station,
estimated to cost between $2.5 million and $3 million, could be
completed sometime next year. This station will also be a
significant convenience for travellers to Toronto.
This particular project is a great example of the federal and
municipal levels of government working together on a project that
people of my area want and need.
In this regard, I would like to thank both the Minister of
Transport and Mayor Bob Chiarelli in the city of Ottawa.
* * *
[Translation]
SENIORS MONTH
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues and all
Canadians that in most provinces June is Seniors Month.
[English]
It is a time to celebrate the contribution that seniors bring to
our communities and to reflect on the impact that Canada's aging
population will have on our society.
Seniors play an irreplaceable role in our lives. They provide
caregiving and support. They act as advisers. They offer a
sense of continuity and transmit knowledge and values between
generations.
[Translation]
During this International Year of the Volunteer, we have one
more opportunity to salute our seniors. Large numbers of them
give of their time and energies to benefit their communities. In
fact, this is the age group that gives the most volunteer hours.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage you and our
colleagues to take part in the celebrations of this special
year and of Seniors Month in particular.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, nine illegal
immigrants were landed by boat on the B.C. coast. In 1999, 600
illegal immigrants landed on B.C.'s shores.
The Liberal government then promised action regarding
sovereignty for our coast line, but actions speak louder than
words. Aurora surveillance aircraft from Comox has had its
flying hours reduced from 12,000 hours to 8,000 hours. Pilot and
crew training requirements are the same but other client
services, especially coastal surveillance, have been reduced
significantly.
This is not an illegal immigrant issue, this is a sovereignty
issue.
Why is it that foreign boats can cross the Pacific, reach
Canadian landfall and be outside the 200 mile limit again before
Canadian authorities know anything?
A strong surveillance deterrent for narcotics and other criminal
activities is required.
Coastal residents in my riding know our surveillance is lacking
and that the national interest is being managed poorly. When
will the government get serious about Canadian sovereignty?
* * *
THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recent
reports indicate that since last September at least 600 people
have died in outbreaks of violence between Israelis and
Palestinians.
For every tragic death in the region, families on both sides
suffer from the devastating loss of their loved ones. Yet their
grief is quickly lost in the headlines with news of yet more
innocent lives sacrificed to a senseless cycle of violence.
I wonder what it would be like if every family were to see and
feel the grief and suffering of the mothers and fathers on the
other side.
Surely the voices of peace will prevail. I join with my
colleagues, and indeed all Canadians, to call on the leaders in
the regions to make peace a priority.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
MARYSE CARMICHAEL
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for the first time in its 30 year history, a woman,
Captain Maryse Carmichael, is flying with the Snowbirds aerobatic
team.
Her popularity was very much in evidence at the various
performances at the Quebec City air show this past weekend,
attended by over 100,000 people in all. Many of these came
especially to see Number 3 pilot in action.
Captain Carmichael did not disappoint. As inner left wing, she
excelled in close formation flying and in low level aerobatics,
proving without a doubt that she can hold her own in the elite
world of aerobatics.
Despite her celebrity, this native of Beauport has retained a
simplicity and wisdom of which her parents, Jean-Yves and
Francine, can be proud.
When asked recently about being a role model for girls, she
replied that she was one for boys as well, adding “When a person
wants to do something that has never been done, that does not
mean it can't be done. If you work hard, the results will come.
No doubt about it”.
Bravo to Captain Carmichael. We are proud of her.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased during the last parliament that the Prime Minister
persuaded the provinces to make a deal on health care and the
children's agenda. This was a major step forward.
However, we must still work at strengthening the federal role in
health matters.
In the end, it is only the federal government that can ensure
nationwide standards. Only it can make sure that all Canadians,
not just some regions, get the health care and early childhood
support that they are entitled to.
Our health care system is designed to be universal, portable,
comprehensive, publicly funded and publicly administered. Let us
keep it so.
* * *
GRADUATION
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as we prepare for summer recess tens of thousands of
young lives are about to change forever.
It is graduation season in our high schools, colleges and
universities. The hours of hard work these young people have
taken on is about to be rewarded.
As a former school principal I was never more proud of each
graduating class after watching youngsters grow into independent
thinkers ready to take on the world. The enthusiasm and energy
each graduating class had brings back warm memories each June.
These young lives hold the future of Canada in their hands and we
should look to them for our inspiration.
I am sure each and every member of this House has fond memories
of their own graduations. I would ask members to join with me in
the last five seconds of this statement to wish the very best to
all the graduating classes all across Canada.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
founded on July 15, 1901, this year the International Union of
Elevator Constructors celebrates its 100th year anniversary.
The IUEC has a total of 10 locals across Canada which represent
more than 2,500 mechanics and helpers who build, maintain and
service elevators, escalators and moving walkways. IUEC has
become the most qualified and trained constructors of elevators
in the world. Without their skills and expertise the modern city
could not be the reality that it is.
This August, delegates representing locals from across Canada
and the United States will gather in Toronto for their IUEC
international convention and to celebrate their centenary.
I want to congratulate and extend congratulations to all members
of the IUEC on the milestone of their 100th anniversary.
* * *
WORLD REFUGEE DAY
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on June 20 the world will celebrate the first ever World
Refugee Day. The theme this year is respect, respect for the
rights of refugees worldwide and for the contributions they make
to our societies.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the 1951 refugee
convention, born out of the horrors of World War II and the will
of the international community never to witness them again. Fifty
years later, the convention still remains a necessity today.
Millions of people are living in refugee camps under difficult
conditions or are trapped within the borders of their home
countries unable to escape the horrors of conflict or
persecution.
We owe it on this day to ensure our laws enshrine the values of
justice and fairness for all refugees and we can start by
bringing Bill C-11 in line with our international human rights
obligations.
Let us honour the first World Refugee Day by strengthening our
commitment to refugee protection and welcoming those who come
here in search of the freedom and security we take for granted.
* * *
1410
SAINT JOHN ARMY CADET CORPS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
distinct honour today to rise in support of the 1691 Saint John
Army Cadet Corps, affiliated with the 3rd Field Artillery
Regiment, of which I am the only female honorary gunner in
Canada.
This past weekend the young men and women of the 1691 Saint John
Army Cadet Corps held their 60th annual inspection parade and
were reviewed by the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, Madam
Trenholme.
Having witnessed firsthand the commitment of these young
Canadian citizens, I must remind the House of the invaluable
service provided by the Royal Canadian Army Cadets. There is, in
my view, no better training for the duties and responsibilities
of citizenship than that offered by the Royal Canadian Army
Cadets.
I must urge the government to renew and restore its financial
support for our cadets and to assist in any way possible in the
recruitment of new cadets each and every year.
When so many young Canadians are feeling alienated from the
institutions of our country, the Royal Canadian Army Cadets gives
them a reason to believe in their country of Canada. We thank
them for their service as we also thank our Canadian armed forces
personnel, for the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mount Royal.
* * *
THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I join
my words to those of the member for Ottawa Centre. As a tenuous
Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire hangs on a thread and threatens to
explode into violence, it is more necessary than ever that the
parties adhere to the recommendations of the Mitchell commission,
including: first, the unequivocal and unconditional cessation of
all acts of terrorism and violence; second, the cessation and
desisting from all acts of incitement, for it is this teaching of
contempt, this demonizing of the other, particularly that which
is government sanctioned, where it all begins; third, the
ending of the culture of impunity and the bringing of the
perpetrators of acts of violence and terrorism to justice;
fourth, the institutionalization of security co-operation between
the parties so as to pre-empt acts of violence and incitement;
fifth, the promotion of a culture of prevention through the
institutionalization of confidence building measures; and sixth,
the recommitment to direct negotiations between the parties as a
basis for a just and lasting peace.
* * *
[Translation]
CENTRE DE LA NATURE DE LAVAL
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Centre de la nature de Laval, an immense garden built from
scratch in an unused quarry, welcomed one million visitors in
2000, who came for relaxation and for cultural and family
activities.
As part of the Grands Prix du tourisme québécois on May 11, the
Centre de la nature won the Kéroul award, an annual award that
goes to an organization whose facilities are particularly
accessible to people with disabilities.
The Comité consultatif conjoint pour l'accessibilité des
personnes handicapées and the Centre de la nature overcame all
obstacles, as the construction of a play area safe for all
children, regardless of their level of development and
independence, testifies.
As a recipient of the Kéroul award, the Centre de la nature
joins other prestigious recipients, including the Cité de
l'énergie, Forillon park and the Musée d'art de Joliette.
I am proud to congratulate and thank, on behalf of the people of
Laval, the Centre de la nature and organizations that work to
improve the living conditions of people with disabilities.
* * *
1415
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Speaker: Hon. members, on your behalf, I would today like to
thank our pages, who have worked for us over the year. They
worked very hard in two parliaments, and we are very grateful
for all they have done.
[English]
I also want to join members in giving all the pages our very
best wishes for continued success, not just in your next few
years of university work but also in your careers thereafter. I
must say we all look forward to your returning to this place
either as employees of the House or as elected members of
parliament.
[Translation]
I wish each of you good luck and thank you very much.
[English]
We wish you every success in the future. Thank you for your
help this year.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
a forensic expert has said the bill of sale for the Grand-Mère
golf course could have been altered.
Could the government tell us where the original is and will the
original be available for independent analysis?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think this question should be directed to the Prime
Minister's Office. It is a matter involving the Prime Minister's
private business affairs before he became Prime Minister and does
not relate directly to the operations of the government.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, late yesterday we learned from the ethics counsellor
that the original bill of sale exists. The ethics counsellor
told us that he saw the bill of sale in the possession of the
Prime Minister's personal lawyer, Deborah Weinstein.
We believe the bill of sale could be available for independent
analysis without leaving her possession. Will the government
allow independent access to that original bill of sale to clear
the air of serious doubts?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the air was cleared by the Prime Minister and the ethics
counsellor. It is the hon. member who is trying to cast an
unwarranted fog and unwarranted innuendo on the reputation of the
Prime Minister.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister can figure out
that the doubts are the reason that we raising this question.
Canadians were allowed access to a copy of the bill of sale. Now
the accuracy of that copy has been put into question. Why will
the government not commit to allowing access to the original?
What could it be that the Prime Minister would be hiding?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I again point out that we are dealing with something
that does not pertain to the activities of the government or the
Prime Minister as Prime Minister.
I really think we should refrain from further comment until we
have heard the outcome of the Alliance's consultations with their
fortune teller, palm reader and psychic hotline.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we asked the industry minister whether the
RCMP had finished the investigations into the alleged forgery of
the loan authorization for the Auberge Grand-Mère.
BDC quickly sent that document to the police when it became
apparent that the Prime Minister could be implicated. Did the
RCMP finish its investigation into the alleged forgery? If not,
could the industry minister tell the House when we can expect an
answer?
1420
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have said on this side of the House repeatedly that
the RCMP is quite independent of government and ought to be
independent of government.
If the member wants to consult the RCMP or give the RCMP advice
about how to do its job, he should pick up the telephone and
call.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest he did not listen to the question, but I have
another one for him.
In addition to companies maintaining accurate records, the
Business Corporations Act requires that the bill of sale for the
share transfer be an accurate document. The minister has the
responsibility to ensure that the Business Corporations Act is
enforced.
Will the industry minister use his legal authority to require
that the date on the bill of sale for the Grand-Mère golf course
also be verified by a forensic expert?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to go back and repeat, first, the member is asking for
the government to give direction to the RCMP. Nothing could be
more wrong than the government attempting to give direction to
the RCMP.
Second, there is a specific act of parliament which prohibits me
or any member of cabinet or the House from probing into the
private and confidential affairs of Canadian business
participants. It is against the law.
First he wants us to direct the law and now he wants us to break
the law. I say it is time for him to go home.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, during oral question period, the Minister of Human
Resources Development gave her version of the election promises
made by the Liberals to unemployed workers in Quebec.
The minister said, and I quote, “we promised to deliver the
amendments that have now been passed in the context of Bill C-2”.
Is the minister telling unemployed workers that the Liberals'
election promises were limited to getting Bill C-2 passed?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government made good on its
commitments to repeal the intensity rule, to modify the clawback
provisions and to change the re-entrance provisions for parents.
Beyond that, we also extended the period to review and monitor
the Employment Insurance Act for six years. That will go on.
The work of the committee will be considered and, as has been
proven by our track record, we will make changes where changes
are warranted.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning at a press conference, Richard Goyette of
FTQ-Construction said that the Secretary of State for Amateur
Sport promised during the campaign to deliver an indepth reform
of employment insurance that would go well beyond the present
Bill C-2.
Will the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, the one who made
a promise on behalf of the government to unemployed workers on
the North Shore, have the courage to rise in his place today and
tell the House whether his election promises were limited to
getting Bill C-2 passed?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made changes to the Employment
Insurance Act. We are committed to continuing to work with
Canadians to review the impact of employment insurance on their
lives and make changes as warranted.
When will the Bloc members admit that they are afraid to go back
and face their constituents this summer because they voted
against those amendments, with the Alliance Party?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government took advantage of people by
promising, in the middle of an election campaign, substantial
changes to the Employment Insurance Act, when it never intended
to do more than was contained in Bill C-2, which everyone, even
the Liberal members, found fell far short of the mark.
Does the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport deny that he
promised unemployed workers and unions much more substantial
amendments than those contained in Bill C-2 and that he did so to
calm the rumble of discontent threatening to upset the Liberal
campaign? Could he not rise today and remind the Minister of
Human Resources Development that this was the case?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at what some people said
about the amendments in Bill C-2. For example, the building and
construction trades department of the AFL-CIO stated “Generally
we are supportive of the reforms that are suggested in Bill
C-2”.
The Canadian Federation of Labour said “The positive collective
measures contained in this bill should be adopted rapidly”. We
adopted those amendments rapidly but with no help from that
party.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning, the unions also said that the
government had made promises during the election campaign and
that, if it did not keep them, it would pay the price.
How can the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport sit by while
his government, and this minister, go back on their word?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the real question is how Bloc
Quebecois members can go home this summer and face their
constituents when they voted against seasonal workers, when they
voted against parents, and when they voted against all the
important changes that Canadians have asked for in the Employment
Insurance Act and that we have delivered in this bill and will
continue to work within to deliver.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Kyoto accord is in peril. It is taking a beating from the Bush
administration. The Europeans and the 33 nations that have
already ratified Kyoto remain steadfast in their commitments, but
this government runs hot and cold.
The minister claims that Canada is on track to meet our
commitments. Would he explain what is preventing the Canadian
government from ratifying the Kyoto accord before climate change
talks resume in July?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the same thing is preventing Canada from
ratification as it is every other one of the industrialized countries
in the European Union and many others.
The reason is that while we have accepted and agreed to targets
for various countries for Kyoto, there is no agreement on how
those targets will be reached. We are having further
negotiations in Bonn in July and I trust they will be successful.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
not exactly flattering that the Canadian Medical Association
Journal today called Canada environmentally insincere. There
are dozens of good reasons, urgent reasons, for ratifying the
Kyoto accord and only one reason that we can see for Canada's
foot dragging.
Is the real reason for the refusal to ratify the Kyoto accord
that this government is waiting for Bush to gain wider acceptance
for his feeble alternate climate change scheme and then fall into
line?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today the Liberal government threw the Magna Carta
and the Canadian constitution in the trash can. By using a
procedural manoeuvre, the Liberals are denying the members of the
House of Commons their right to vote on the contents of $165
billion in public expenditures.
The government has given itself a raise, refuses to do its job
to protect children from exploitation on the Internet and shuts
down parliament early. Is this the price for an early vacation
for this Liberal government?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the question from a party
whose leader refused to show up here for 18 months and now wants
to work one night of overtime a little less than totally sincere.
* * *
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government had $100 million in the 2000 budget for the
sustainable development technology fund, Bill C-46. The
government reintroduced the bill as Bill C-4 in the current
session.
Part of this money was transferred in April 2001 in direct
violation of section 2 of the Financial Administration Act which
designates the end of the fiscal year as March 31. Why do the
minister and the government continue to circumvent parliament?
1430
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the gentleman is completely wrong in his description.
In the establishment of organizations such as the Canada Foundation
for Sustainable Development Technology one could use specific
legislation. One could use the Canada Business Corporations Act
or one could use a contract dealing with an arm's length party
outside the government. We have chosen an option of the first
two in combination.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are concerned over Liberals ignoring the
safety of children.
Members of the Manitoba legislature are expressing concern that
unless the Liberals stop playing partisan politics with Bill C-15
provincial initiatives to assist children will fail. Why does
the Minister of Justice allow partisan Liberal politics to stand
in the way of important provincial initiatives?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the House that
the only things standing in the way of important initiatives to
further protect children are the disgusting, unnecessary antics
of the official opposition.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians know that the Liberal government is standing
in the way of effective child protection because it simply wants
to embarrass the official opposition with its laws.
The Minister of Justice is prepared to gamble with the safety of
children by playing American style politics. Why does the
Minister of Justice not stop rolling the political dice? Why
does she not do something for children instead?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that
members of the official opposition do not need any help from us
in terms of embarrassing themselves. They are able to do that
quite well themselves.
In responding to what the hon. member believes is a serious
issue, we on this side of the House have said consistently that
we are ready to move on Bill C-15. We will pass Bill C-15 today
if the official opposition is willing to move.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there are urgent needs in social housing and the government must
take immediate action.
How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
justify allocating to Quebec $147 million of the total budget of
the program to create affordable housing when the province
should get $163 million based on its demographic weight and $183
million based on actual needs? Why such a shortfall for Quebec?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec will get its fair share,
based on its demographic weight, of the total amount of $680
million that we announced during the last election campaign and
included in the throne speech.
I already wrote to Ms. Harel, the minister. I met her in New
York on Friday and I told her that instead of issuing a press
release she should have read the letter carefully, because she
would have understood that Quebec will get its share based on
its demographic weight.
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
under the minister's plan, rent for the social housing units that
would be built in Montreal would be $700 per month.
Does the minister not realize that at $700 per month needy
families would not have access to these housing units and that
his plan is totally off target?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary.
Ms. Harel's press release says that a $25,000 involvement is
necessary for these programs to work. It just so happens that we
are proposing that $12,500 come from the federal government and
that $12,500 come from the provincial government. This amounts
to $25,000. I think we are on the right track.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is odd, is it not, how opposition ethics are
blamed for something that cannot pass through the House with a
majority government in place?
1435
The reason the bill is not going forward is that it is an
omnibus bill dealing with many issues such as sexual predators on
the Internet, firearms, cruelty to animals and disarming a police
officer.
This issue could have been separated out and the bill would
have been passed through the House by now. I would like to ask
the Minister of Justice why it is that sexual predators are not a
priority of the government.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made it plain over and
over again that sexual predators are a priority of the government
and the protection of our children is a priority of the
government.
Unfortunately it does not appear to be a priority of the
official opposition. We are ready this afternoon to pass Bill
C-15. Why do they not put their petty posturing to one side and
join us this afternoon in the passage of Bill C-15?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, talk about petty posturing. Three months ago in the
House we passed a unanimous resolution to develop a sex offender
registry, only to find out afterward that the government had no
intention of bringing in enabling legislation to get the thing
operational.
It is just another case of the government saying to the Canadian
public “We will fix you up with sexual predators; we will bring
in the legislation” and it is not doing a damn thing about it. I
would like to know why the government is not dealing with sexual
predators or a sex offender registry.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is asking us to put a
registry in place like some of the states in the U.S.,
where less than 50% of the people convicted of crime
register on the database.
What we have in this country is one of the best databases for
police in the world. We work in co-operation with the provinces
and territories to make sure we will continue to have the best
database to support the RCMP and other police forces in the
world.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that Loblaws is requiring
its suppliers to stop labelling products as GMO free. The
government's lack of leadership is creating chaos in the food
industry.
Considering how tough the food industry is and considering that
now we have a company like Loblaws resorting to bully tactics,
what does the minister intend to do to avoid the situation
becoming worse?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the House a number of
times, the Canadian General Standards Board is working with many
partners in the industry to put in place a system so that we are
able to label foods for genetic modification. Those regulations
are not in place.
At this time the decision is there from the buyer to work with
the seller to arrange how they will accept labelling at the
present time, but there are no regulations at this time to allow
that to happen.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister seems not to understand the urgency
here.
Now we have Loblaws forbidding its suppliers to provide it with
GMO free labelled products. This is not the same thing at all.
Does the minister not see this as a signal not only that the
producers of biological food items must be protected, but also
that legislation must be passed so that GMO free labelling
applies to all products?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process and the parties have been in
place now for about 18 months in order to come up with a set of
recommendations that can be used hopefully in the future for
the labelling of products that have some parts that may
be genetically modified or that are genetically modified.
I look forward, the government looks forward and the industry
looks forward to the recommendation from that body, which, it tells
me now, will not be before us until this fall. I encourage that
group to get its work done and get its recommendations to us so
that we can move forward in this area.
* * *
1440
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I rose on a point of order to indicate that
the government was spending about $4 million or $5 million
without the appropriate authority of the House of Commons. Now we
find that the auditor general said on Bill C-4 in the Senate
committee:
I am concerned about the transfer of large amounts of public
money to foundations long before it will be spent on delivering
services.
Why does the Minister of Natural Resources, who is responsible
for Bill C-4, insist on engaging in shady accounting practices
that will not stand up to the light of day?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. gentleman's question is
absolutely wrong.
In order to establish a foundation of this nature there are
three ways in which the government could proceed: either under
specific legislation passed by the House, or under the general
authority of the Canada Business Corporations Act, or by contract
with an independent third party.
In any event the funding was provided for in the February 2000
budget and duly voted upon by the House.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. A few years ago the Minister of
Finance gave $2.5 billion for the millennium scholarship fund so
he could spend the money just before the election. Here we have
another slush fund being set up by the government so that it can
just spend it before the next election. Therefore—
The Speaker: The Chair has concerns about some of the
language being used and I urge the hon. member to show proper
temperance in his speech.
Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but when they
set money aside in a private bank account I have to call it
something. The point is that parliament has to know what is
going on.
My question is for the minister. When will they keep the public
in public business and ensure that the public knows what is going
on and how taxpayer money is being spent?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the accounts of my department are audited by the auditor
general. The funding arrangement between my department, the
Department of the Environment and the new foundation will be
reviewed by the auditor general.
The actual spending decisions by the foundation will be audited
by a distinguished, independent auditing firm from the private
sector according to generally accepted accounting principles
fully within the law and all authorized by the budget of February
2000 in the House.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a member of parliament from Manitoba I am proud of
the rich cultural diversity of my province. I am also proud of
the government's commitment to create a more prosperous society
that builds on the strengths of our citizens.
I understand that the member of parliament for Winnipeg
North—St. Paul and Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific was in
Winnipeg on Monday to announce Canada-Manitoba infrastructure
program funding for the Philippine Canadian Centre. Could the
secretary of state share with the House the importance of this
project?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg South
Centre. Indeed I was pleased to announce yesterday on behalf of
the minister responsible for the Canada-Manitoba infrastructure
program funding for the Philippine Canadian Centre in Winnipeg to
the tune of $900,000.
The centre will help with the settlement of new immigrants to
the city and meet the social, educational and cultural
requirements of that community and the community at large.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
complaints of grocery store supermarkets discriminating against
low income people is a graphic example of why it is imperative to
have social condition in the Canadian Human Rights Act. This has been
recommended by the commission.
At the very least the government could stagger its own cheques
to prevent stores from gouging poor people. Will the Minister of
Justice take immediate action to change the way the government
issues its cheques and change the act to include social condition
in the Canadian Human Rights Act?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am in a
position to comment on how the government issues its cheques, but
I will take that up with one of my colleagues, maybe the Minister of
National Revenue.
1445
In relation to the other issue of social condition, as the hon.
member is probably aware, Mr. Justice La Forest undertook a
review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. His task force issued a
report with over 160 recommendations, one of which was to look at
the possibility of adding social condition. We will pursue that
as we—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.
* * *
ENERGY
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Wind Energy Association launched an initiative
today. Its goal is to create 10,000 megawatts of wind power
capacity and provide at least 5% of Canada's electricity by 2010.
At the same time communities across Canada continue to issue
smog alerts and thousands of Canadians are suffering from the
harmful effects of air pollution.
Will the government take the opportunity today to endorse the
association's ten by ten initiative?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last couple of hours I have had an opportunity to
receive the document from the Canadian Wind Energy Association.
It will be reviewed with a great deal of care by the government.
I would also point out that we have been purchasing green power
in the province of Alberta for the last three years. We will be
purchasing green power in the province of Saskatchewan before the
end of this year. Two weeks ago we signed a new wind power
agreement in the province of Prince Edward Island.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have now
admitted that there has been a secret cabinet committee
overseeing the replacement of the Sea King helicopters, chaired
by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what powers that
secret committee of his exercised? Did it order changes made to
the contract process? Did it recommend splitting the procurement
contract?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and I made no such
admission. There is no secret committee presently overseeing the
procurement of the new shipboard helicopter.
The hon. member is so off base he is even thinking of trying to
become leader of the Alliance Party.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
let me quote the Prime Minister himself saying that the Deputy
Prime Minister “presided over a committee to look at the process
of establishing the bids that are out”.
I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister.
During his tenure as chair of the cabinet committee overseeing
the maritime helicopter project, did the Deputy Prime Minister
receive any representations or any interventions from any
companies interested in bidding on this contract?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have heard from a lot of companies, as I think has the
hon. member. I want to say that I am not supervising the
procurement process. It is being carried out according to the
established procedures by the Minister of National Defence and
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Yes, we looked in the past at how this process might operate.
The work that we did in the past resulted in an open and
transparent process. At this stage no request for proposals has
yet been made. No bids have been received except the bid of the
hon. member to head the Alliance Party.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
in an interview with La Presse last year Madam Tremblay
acknowledged that her friendship with the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services granted her an insider advantage
over other firms in receiving government contracts.
Today we find out that this minister was handing out these
contracts to Madam Tremblay as early as 1995. The government
will not release even the most basic information about these
contracts. When will the minister release the information?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all contracts awarded by the
government not only to this firm but to every firm are done under
treasury board rules. These contracts were awarded under various
ministers over a six year period of time. I repeat, they were
done in compliance with treasury board rules.
1450
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let me quote from the interview with Madame Tremblay:
That seems to say it all right there. Why will the minister not
release the information in these contracts? What is the
government trying to hide?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a lot of people claim to be
friends with the government. However, contracts awarded by the
government are awarded under treasury board guidelines and the
rules are followed.
* * *
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
the federal-provincial conference on the harmonization of
legislation, Quebec's proposal to introduce ignition interlock
systems for drivers who are repeat offenders received the
support of 32 of the 33 provincial delegates.
Does the Minister of Justice intend to act on this proposal by
introducing legislative amendments to the criminal code quickly
to enable Quebec and all provinces to start up a program for an
ignition interlock device for drunk drivers who could be repeat
offenders?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in receipt of and well
aware of the resolution the hon. member speaks of.
My officials are working with Quebec and other provinces, and we
hope to make amendments to the criminal code very soon to permit
just that.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is urgent.
Need I remind the minister that just about every week a child
dies, men and women die, because of a repeat offender who could
care less about the law?
For once, will the minister act like a minister and have her
officials set to paper, in black and white, a bill that could be
tabled this fall to fight these repeat offenders and enable the
provinces that so desire to set up an ignition interlock device
program for these alcoholics at the wheel? This is a serious
question.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
drunk driving is a severe problem in society. Too many people
die tragically every year. The criminal code is one part of a
concerted response to the problem of drunk driving.
As I have indicated to the hon. member, my officials are working
with Quebec and others, and we hope to be able to come forward
with an amendment to the criminal code as early as this fall.
* * *
CRTC
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, democracy depends on a competitive
and free news media. The decision by the CBC to pressure the
CRTC to eliminate the competition for live coverage of Canadian
events is an example of government agencies out of control.
For the sake of Canadians, will the minister ensure that
Canadians will have a choice when it comes to live news coverage?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the CRTC has asked
for public comment.
I happen to have the phone number of the CRTC here. It is
819-997-0313. I urge all who share the views of the hon. member
to please call the CRTC today.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with only the CBC complaining, the
CRTC has no right to be in the business of denying choice in news
reporting.
Will the Prime Minister act now to ensure that interference with
news reporting is stopped?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is precisely that interference we are trying to
avoid. I would urge the hon. member, who has expressed a view
which I am sure is shared by thousands of her constituents, to
take the time today to listen to the CRTC's call for public
comment and call 819-997-0313 and please make her views known.
* * *
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the most significant outcome of the summit of the Americas was
the democracy clause and the commitment that foreign ministers
would develop an inter-American democratic charter.
Recently foreign ministers from the hemisphere met in Costa Rica
to discuss this issue. Could the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa inform us what action was taken on the
democratic charter?
1455
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a little off subject, may I
congratulate the hon. Secretary of State for Children and Youth
for today obtaining an honorary doctorate of letters from Brock
University.
The charter is moving. The OAS general assembly has considered
the elements and 90 days from now—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, less than nine months ago the health minister
advised the department of immigration to screen all potential
immigrants for HIV and hepatitis B. As of today that advice was
rescinded and the Department of Health is now recommending that
Canada admit HIV positive immigrants.
I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. Why
the flip-flop? Are we putting the health of all Canadians at
risk?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have now brought the policy of this country in line with that
of many others with which we compare ourselves.
The policy recommendation we have made to the minister of
immigration is simply that we have mandatory testing for HIV and
certain other diseases for anyone who would immigrate to Canada.
If persons are HIV positive they are counselled, informed and
provided treatment if it is required. It is non-discriminatory.
It is in the interests of public health in Canada and we have
confidence that we have given the right advice.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, conservative estimates state that the annual cost of
caring for a Canadian HIV patient is about $200,000. There were
some 200 HIV positive immigrants allowed into Canada last year.
That is $40 million a year.
How does the minister of immigration expect the already
overburdened health system to cope?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify the policy for the member
opposite. There will be mandatory testing for all of those who
want to come to Canada as immigrants. That testing is important
because it leads to counselling and treatment. However we are
working with the provinces to determine who will be admissible to
Canada. Those decisions will be made on a case by case basis.
I want to point out to the member opposite that just as the
Minister of Health said, consistent with other countries that
accept refugees, there will be no inadmissibility bar for
refugees, spouses, partners and dependent children. That is the
right thing to do.
* * *
[Translation]
REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a taxpayer from
my region filed his income tax return in French, as usual, but
received a notice of assessment that was in English only. He was
told that this was because he had omitted to check off the box
to specify his preferred language.
Could the minister responsible for official languages tell us if
his new policy is to consider all Quebecers as anglophones
unless they clearly identify themselves as francophones?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we know, all the departments
must comply with the Official Languages Act.
Of course, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency provides
services in both official languages, but mistakes can sometimes
occur. If this is the case, I would ask people to contact the
agency to correct the situation.
However this works both ways, because I personally once received a
notice in English from Revenu Québec.
* * *
[English]
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State
for Rural Development. Yesterday the secretary of state attended
a conference in Thunder Bay with community futures development
corporations.
As a rural member I am very interested in the outcome of that
conference yesterday. Could the secretary of state tell us of
any new initiatives that were announced?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to meet with the
community futures organizations from across Ontario and to
celebrate with them their work with small business in creating
wealth and creating jobs.
To that end we are undertaking a number of new initiatives,
including a pilot project to increase their lending limit from
$125,000 to $500,000, a new common identifier so that businesses
will be better able to access community futures and, in order
that community futures across the country can learn from best
practices, we are establishing a national network of community
futures.
1500
On behalf of the Minister of Industry and the secretaries of
state responsible for the regional development agencies, I am
pleased to announce $600,000 to that end.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources recently stated
that the solution to the agricultural income crisis was that
farmers must diversify. However, for years he has steadfastly
refused to end the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board which is
an impediment to diversification. In one breath he tells farmers
to diversify and in another refuses to remove the impediment to
diversification.
The minister should either stop speaking out of both sides of
his mouth or end the punitive monopoly of the Canadian Wheat
Board. Which will it be?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact the Canadian Wheat Board works very hard with farmers
and others to encourage diversification and value added.
I think the hon. gentleman's criticism is a little bit off base.
He is speaking as if the Canadian Wheat Board were the worst
abomination in Canadian public life. According to his good
friends, that position is already occupied.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, airline pilots are falling asleep in the cockpit,
thus endangering the safety of their passengers, because
Canadian rules governing the number of hours pilots can spend at
the controls are among the least restrictive in the world.
Is the minister waiting for a disaster to happen before taking
steps to ensure that in the calculation of the maximum number
of hours pilots may work a distinction is made between time at
the controls and overall duty time as is done in other
countries, including the United States?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to remind the hon. member that Canada's safety
standards in aviation are unparalleled in the world. We run the
safest aviation system and that is recognized by other countries
in the world.
I would caution my friend to not get the wrong impression from
one set of newspaper articles which interviewed a number of
people. Who knows what the agenda is?
Airline travel in this country is safe. Pilots do their job. I
would ask the hon. member to look at the facts and not at
the rhetoric in this case.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Adrian Severin,
President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
NELSON MANDELA
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.), seconded by the hon.
members for Windsor West, Medicine Hat, Laurier—Sainte-Marie,
Winnipeg—Transcona and Calgary Centre, moved:
That this House, recognizing the great moral leadership provided
by Nelson Mandela to South Africa and to all humanity, agree that
he be declared an honorary citizen of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sense of both pride and
humility, pride to be part of this process but also humility
because I think the more one learns about Nelson Mandela the more
one realizes that one is not worthy to so much as gather up the
crumbs from under his table.
In defence of such admittedly extravagant language, if I had to
defend it in a sentence I would say that he forgave his
tormentors.
Who in this House, in this country and on this planet would do
likewise? He forgave his tormentors and those of his people.
1505
With respect to the hon. member for Calgary West, talking about
going from one extreme to another, all I would say is that I
believe Mr. Mandela himself would agree that in a democracy
everyone has the right to his or her opinion, however off the wall
that opinion might be.
[Translation]
In our time I know of three leaders who were sent to prison and
whose causes inspired the world.
There was Mahatma Gandhi, who was assassinated before being able
to reach his goal of democracy. There was Martin Luther King,
who reminded his mighty nation that there were two classes of
Americans, separate and unequal. He too was assassinated. And
then there was, and still is, Nelson Mandela, who led the people of
South Africa on a long march to freedom.
At that time, while many other countries were indifferent,
Canada, and all political parties in Canada, beginning with the
Progressive Conservative Party of John George
Diefenbaker, supported Mr. Mandela.
[English]
Only once before in our history have we honoured a foreigner
with our own citizenship, and that was Raoul Wallenberg, the
great Swede who saved the lives of 100,000 Jews during World War
II.
Now, in his sunset years, Mr. Mandela's long trek has only one
more objective outstanding, and that is the children of Africa
who he will help through his Nelson Mandela Children's Fund, to
help give to them what we in this country take for granted: food,
medicine and education.
It is my fervent hope that when Nelson Mandela comes to Canada
in the fall, hordes of children from across the country will meet
him and greet him and we will have a huge fundraising event to
raise money for his children's fund.
[Translation]
As a Canadian, I am very proud that Canada will be the first
nation in the world to grant this honour to Mr. Mandela.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I commend to you, citizen Nelson Mandela.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to second my colleague's motion to grant
honorary Canadian citizenship to an extraordinary figure in the
history of the 20th century, Nelson Mandela.
[Translation]
Yes, it is a true honour to rise in this House today to second
the motion of my colleague to make Nelson Mandela, an historical
figure of the 20th century, an honorary citizen of Canada.
[English]
Why are we taking this extraordinary step to honour this great
man, a step taken only once before to honour Raoul Wallenberg?
This is because Canada has stood with Nelson Mandela and the
causes of freedom, justice and equality to which he has devoted
his life. In return, South Africa, Canada and the entire world
have been given something very special through that life.
1510
When he visited Ottawa in 1990, Nelson Mandela had just been
released from 27 years of unjustified imprisonment by a system
that oppressed its people because of their colour, because of
their origin, and denied them justice, equality and freedom.
He accepted an invitation to speak to a joint session of the
House and the Senate, seeking our support as Canadians in his
struggle against apartheid and for the ending of the odious
apartheid regime in his country.
In that year I was the leader of the opposition and I had the
honour of meeting and talking with Mr. Mandela privately. On
that occasion, in his presence I could sense his determination
to build a country based on freedom and equality for all its
people, regardless of colour or origin, in the spirit not of
revenge but of reconciliation and forgiveness. That was in 1990.
In 1998 we again had the pleasure of welcoming Nelson Mandela,
then president of a fully democratic South Africa, to Ottawa. It
was during this visit that we again bestowed upon him the honour
of a rare joint address to both of our Houses of Parliament. At
that time he was hopeful for the future yet cautious and very
grateful for the support given to his nation by Canada. He
stated:
We are all too aware of the great deal that remains to be done.
What is important is that we are united as a nation as never
before and determined to succeed, and that we have friends like
Canada who are working with us as partners.
I also heard Mr. Mandela in Pretoria on the occasion of the
inauguration of his successor, Thabo Mbeki. What struck me
during that visit was the gratitude of South Africans of all
walks of life and origins toward Mr. Mandela as father of their
new South African state based on freedom and equality for all.
I would like to think that Canada is also grateful to Nelson
Mandela for his role in history, for opposing injustice and for
striving to right an enormous wrong and thus setting an example
for the rest of the world.
As he said at his own trial by the apartheid regime for opposing
its prejudiced laws in 1964:
I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against
black domination, I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and
free society in which all persons live together in harmony and
with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live
for and achieve. But if needs be, it is an idea for which I am
prepared to die.
Fortunately for us and for the world and South Africa, it was
and is an ideal which he lived for and achieved.
I want to conclude by quoting our Prime Minister, who said about
Nelson Mandela:
It is for these reasons that at the start of the 21st century
the House should honour Nelson Mandela unanimously by voting in
favour of the motion now before us. In doing so we confirm the
values that we as Canadians hold dear: values of inclusiveness,
equality, justice and freedom, values which provide the
foundations for the fabric of our great country.
In doing this we show this parliament is worthy of honour by
honouring a great man of this 21st century and every century,
Nelson Mandela.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I look upon this opportunity to
represent my party in support of this motion as a distinct
honour.
I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Mandela on a couple of
occasions. I acknowledge and thank the member for Markham for
originating this overture to this esteemed gentleman.
1515
In July 1991, I was part of an eight member international
delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to South
Africa, partly to acknowledge Mr. Mandela's release from his 27
year detention in prison and partly to observe and share thoughts
with representatives and parliamentarians to South Africa's
return to full democracy.
In that context, our delegation members had the honour of
meeting Mr. Mandela as he welcomed the first official visit of
the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 30 years to South
Africa after a hiatus from 1961 to 1991.
The CPA delegation leader at the time was the Hon. Clive
Griffiths, president of the legislative council of western
Australia. In his remarks at official ceremonies acknowledging
this new beginning for South Africa, a ceremony which also
included remarks by Mr. Mandela, Mr. Griffiths quoted Thomas
Jefferson in his remarks, saying that compromise was all three of
the main principles of politics.
He further stated that apartheid may have delayed but failed to
destroy the destiny of South Africa to choose its system of
government and that what we were bearing witness to was a
transition from a racial oligarchy to a colourblind democracy.
In these remarks, Clive Griffiths was really acknowledging Nelson
Mandela as we are today.
We are practising compromise, tolerance and virtue, as did Dr.
Mandela, who emerged from his 27 years of imprisonment without
vindictiveness and in a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation.
With his positive forgive and forget attitude, Nelson Mandela
surely delivered his people and country from further racial
strife after suffering a lifetime of apartheid. This serenity is
what we are honouring here today.
In Mr. Mandela's remarks following Mr. Griffiths' introduction,
I observed a sense of peace in Mr. Mandela's heart and soul.
There was no room for recriminations of the past, nor should
there be today. The virtue of peace that Mr. Mandela bestowed on
his country as it made the transition is a virtue we all should
emulate. To give credence to this virtue, the House has moved to
confer honorary Canadian citizenship on Mr. Mandela. What a
dignified and fitting manner in which to emulate the peace of this Nobel
peace prize recipient.
As I watched and listened to Mr. Mandela on that July day in
1991, I was naturally moved. Not only was I a personal witness
to an historic world event and occasion, I was witness to the
testimony of a man who had been through the terrors of apartheid,
imprisonment and reprisal. He stood there at that moment devoid
of any vengeance. What a testimony to the human spirit and
faith.
I call on my colleagues, in Mr. Mandela's spirit of forgiveness
and reconciliation, not only to honour this indomitable gentleman
but to honour this institution and this country with his
citizenship in it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there are few true heroes in this world. When one comes along,
he is readily recognized. Nelson Mandela is one such hero.
He came out of prison after 27 years, strong, firm in his
convictions, a modest man, close to his people. He is an example
of courage and determination, but also of wisdom and
intelligence. He became president of South Africa at a time when
violence could have exploded at any moment.
His autobiography provides us with a better understanding of the
greatness of this man, the liberator of his people, who forgave
those who had imprisoned him and oppressed his people.
We who are elected by the people know what they expect of us
under far easier circumstances that pale in comparison with those
faced by President Mandela. Mandela's true successes are easily
seen.
He represents humanity's hope for a better world. If our
children, today's youth, can hope in the future, it is because
they have in Nelson Mandela a tangible and contemporary example.
It is that hope, and that commitment, to which we pay tribute
today.
It is comforting to think that our civilization is still capable
of generating men and women of this calibre. While those of us
in the western world like to think that we are in the forefront
of the great emancipators, it is stimulating to realize that an
African, Nelson Mandela, sets us an example and shows us the way
in this long march toward freedom.
1520
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
today to support the resolution to grant Nelson Mandela honorary
Canadian citizenship.
[English]
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on
the motion before the House. I think it can be said that for
most members, and I would have thought all members, of the House of
Commons the occasion on which Nelson Mandela addressed us in this
Chamber would have been one of the absolute highlights of our
parliamentary careers. I know I speak personally when I say that
will always remain so for me.
His message to us on that occasion and his wonderful
autobiographical account, A Long Walk to Freedom, both remind
us why Nelson Mandela, through his words and deeds, has been
embraced by the whole world as a symbol of courage, hope and
reconciliation.
I will quote briefly from words of a South African journalist
and broadcaster who put together a wonderful little pocketbook of
the words of Nelson Mandela. In 1998 she wrote:
—Nelson Mandela is the world's role model. A towering figure of
strength and forgiveness, he has been able to do the almost
impossible: unite the bitterly divided people of the country of
his birth. In doing so, he has been taken to the heart of both
the mighty and the dispossessed the world over.
On a political note, I do not think I was the only member who was
shocked and saddened by the refusal of one of our colleagues to
enter into that very spirit of tolerance, of reconciliation and
of peace, and endorse the resolution to make Nelson Mandela an
honorary citizen of Canada.
This is an occasion for us to call up the spirit and
inspiration of Nelson Mandela, and to remind ourselves that
for Nelson Mandela the struggle is never won and that one must
always go on reaching out for greater understanding of all of our
fellow citizens.
In that spirit, I hope all members of the House, including those
who were not prepared to come up front immediately, will
understand the importance of rewarding honorary citizenship to
Nelson Mandela and be moved by that same spirit today.
On a very personal note, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that one of
the absolute high moments of my adult life was the very brief
conversation that I was privileged to have with Nelson Mandela
when your predecessor invited us into his chamber to do that. On
that occasion I had the opportunity to ask Nelson Mandela a
question that I am sure had been put to him thousands of times. I
asked him how it was possible, after 27 years of wrongful
imprisonment, for him to be able to emerge without rancour,
bitterness and without being bent on revenge.
His answer was simple. He said “We had a nation to build, we
had much work to do”.
Let us always be infused by that speaker. Let us do honour to
the contribution made by Nelson Mandela, but let us also honour
this place and this nation today, with one voice and in that
spirit of unity and reconciliation, by endorsing the call for
Nelson Mandela to be made an honorary citizen of Canada.
1525
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud and happy to support, along with my colleagues in the
House, the motion of the member for Markham to make Nelson
Mandela an honorary citizen of Canada.
This motion is intended to recognize his extraordinary efforts
and leadership in his quest for democracy for South Africa and
respect for the rights and freedoms of all.
I will never forget my first meeting with Mr. Mandela in Lusaka,
Zambia, only a week after his release. I was at the time the
first member of a western government—
An hon. member: That is not the right country.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: It is the right country.
As I said, it was in Lusaka, Zambia. I know my geography and
history, perhaps even better than the Canadian Alliance.
It was in Lusaka, Zambia, where Mr. Mandela had his first meeting
in exile with the members of the African National Congress. It
was not possible for them to meet in South Africa. It was one
of the elements of the apartheid regime.
What struck me most was his behaviour. He was not bitter. He
was not full of vengeance. He was full of hope.
[English]
On February 11, 1990, the unforgettable day of his release from
prison, Mr. Mandela could have, with one flick of his wrist or
one misstated word, triggered a revolution and his country would
have been in flames. He did not. He did the opposite.
What I will always remember is that he recognized that the most
turbulent element of that society at the time were the young
people who had fought at his side and on his behalf, who had
forgone their formation and their training to be supporters of
his while he was in prison. His words to them were to put the
past behind them and to build immediately for the future.
He spoke at the Soweto rally two days after his release, and I
think it is well for this House to remember those words. Mr.
Mandela said to the young of his country:
It has been the policy of the ANC that though the school and the
entire education system is a site of struggle, the actual process
of learning must take place in the schools. I want to add my
voice, therefore, to the call made at the beginning of the year
that all students must return to school and learn. We must
continue our struggle for People's Education within the school
system and utilise its resources to achieve our goals.
In other words, he was saying that the young people of that
country should not reject the system that had rejected them.
What they should do instead is embrace that system, improve it
and move it forward into the future.
None of us who met Nelson Mandela can help escape personal
reactions. I have to say to the House that the single, most
dramatic incident in my political life was precisely in that
meeting in Lusaka when he came out to meet the African National
Congress in exile. I was there because Canada had chaired the
commonwealth committee on Foreign Ministers on
Southern Africa and I was the chair of
that committee.
I recall that a question was put to Mr. Mandela that invited him
to be highly critical of the Afrikaner who had imprisoned him for
all those years. His answer was “we have to understand how
difficult this is for them”.
I was overwhelmed by the generosity of a man able to come out
of prison and out of the conditions he had endured, who could
speak for generosity and understanding of the other side. Yet it
was precisely that capacity that made it possible for people who,
for reasons of colour, of hatred, of ignorance, had been on other
sides in South Africa, to come together in that extraordinary
rainbow coalition to try to establish a nation that could thrive
into the future.
It goes without saying that in that tolerance and in that
generosity there are extraordinary lessons for us in this diverse
but much easier country than South Africa.
1530
Nelson Mandela acknowledged Canada's efforts to end apartheid.
When he spoke in these Chambers on June 18, 1990, he said of
former prime minister Brian Mulroney:
We have been greatly strengthened by your personal involvement in
the struggle against apartheid and tyranny, and the leadership
you provided within the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the
Group of Seven and the Francophonie Summits.
Our efforts however pale in comparison to those of Nelson
Mandela. We should all be proud to have Nelson Mandela declared
an honorary citizen of this free country, Canada.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as my colleagues know, I was born in the African country
of Tanzania and am therefore no stranger to life in a society
where there are racial strains and tensions.
Thankfully we are free to debate the granting of honorary
Canadian citizenship to one of the great figures in recent
history in a Chamber where there are no racial strains or
tensions.
I for one have been very grateful to be accepted in Canadian
society as a member of a visible minority. It is particularly
validating that I have been chosen by thousands of people to be
their representative in the House of Commons.
Not only is Nelson Mandela an international symbol of resistance
to prejudice and injustice, he is also a symbol for peace and
forgiveness because, following his release from prison when he
became the president of South Africa, he made the country's
transition from apartheid to democratic qualities a peaceful one.
Here was a man who was hounded by police for 10 years and then
imprisoned for 27 years as he struggled on behalf of the
non-white majority for freedom from apartheid.
He was banned from all public activity, as the forces arrayed
against him used everything under the laws they had written to
maintain apartheid. A lesser mortal would have emerged from this
ordeal either a broken man or a bitter man intent on revenge
against his oppressors. However Nelson Mandela was not a lesser
mortal. He preached peace and reconciliation and in the end was
jointly awarded the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize.
I can attest, as one coming from Africa, that Africa has
suffered tremendous racial discrimination. Discrimination robs
one of his dignities. It should not have a place in any
civilized society. Mr. Mandela fought for human dignity.
We are a society growing increasingly comfortable with the idea
of a cultural mosaic. We all are free to practise our religion,
maintain our cultural identity and live side by side with people
born on the other side of the planet. Canada is recognized in
the world community as a peaceful place where we can pursue our
dreams both individually and collectively. We not only have two
official languages, but all the languages of the world are spoken
in our homes, shops and neighbourhoods. We too are an example of
tolerance, forbearance and peaceful co-operation.
The issue for me is not the qualification and achievements of
Mr. Nelson Mandela, but rather the lack of process by which
parliament grants honorary Canadian citizenship. It seems to me
that such an honour should be not granted without a debate.
In the future I would suggest establishment of an all party
committee that would first set up the ground rules for why and
how honorary Canadian citizenship should be granted. Once this
has been accomplished, the committee would meet when required to
consider qualification for such status and to discuss and ponder
the qualifications of nominees, and whether a particular
individual should be accorded such an honour.
It is my belief that all members of parliament would be proud to
serve on such a committee.
1535
The committee would then bring forward its recommendations to
confer honorary citizenship in the House of Commons.
Once conferred, it would be clear to one and all that the status
of honorary Canadian citizenship had been granted with the
blessing of every Canadian from every corner of the nation.
Just last week I attended the ceremony to honour Raoul
Wallenberg, a hero who saved thousands of Jews from the Holocaust
during World War II and who died in a Soviet labour camp. It is
lamentable that so few Canadians know the history and the heroism
of Raoul Wallenberg. Had his honorary citizenship been subject
to parliamentary discussion and decision as I suggest, perhaps
millions more Canadians would know and honour the memory of
Raoul Wallenberg today.
Today we are talking about informing Canadians about the great
achievements of Mr. Mandela. If we are going to honour our
world's heroes, let us do it out in the sunshine so all Canadians
can share in the tribute and knowledge.
I would like to conclude by saying that Nelson Mandela has
already taken his place among the world's historic figures. He
is as deserving of praise and high honours as any individual who
has ever graced the pages of our history books.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am particularly pleased, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for
citizenship and immigration, to speak today to Motion No. 379
tabled by the member for Markham to award honorary Canadian
citizenship to a great hero of democracy, Nelson Mandela.
To date, only one person has been given this honour: Raoul
Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of people
from Nazi death camps during the second world war.
I cannot ignore the symbolism of this motion a few hours before
passage at third reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting
immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to
persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.
Nelson Mandela is an example for those who lead the fight for
democracy in the world.
In 1944, he joined the African National Congress, the ANC. In
1948, the National Party won the election in South Africa. Its
platform was unequivocal “The Black man in his place”. From then
on, the policy of apartheid got tougher and introduced one of the
most racist and undemocratic regimes in modern history.
Nelson Mandela was once asked when he decided to fight for
freedom. He replied:
I cannot say exactly when I became politically active, when I
knew that I would spend my life fighting for freedom. Being an
African in South Africa means that we are politically active from
the moment we are born, whether we know it or not. African
children are born in hospitals reserved for Africans; they go
home in buses reserved for Africans; they live in neighbourhoods
reserved for Africans and they go to schools reserved for
Africans, that is if they go at all. When they grow up, they can
only get jobs that are reserved for Africans, rent houses in
townships reserved for Africans, travel in trains reserved for
Africans—
—I never had a defining moment, a revelation, a moment of
truth. It was the accumulation of thousands of insults,
humiliations and forgotten moments that led me to revolt, that
gave me the desire to fight a regime that held my people captive.
In June 1955, the ANC adopted the charter of freedom which, in
addition to criticizing apartheid, proposed the creation of a
democratic and non-racial South Africa. At the end of that same
year, Nelson Mandela was arrested for high treason, an offence
punishable by death. He and 91 other ANC members were put on
trial, a trial that was to end with their acquittal in 1961.
In June 1961, the ANC decided to take up arms to fight apartheid
by setting up an organization known as the “spear of the nation”
and led by Nelson Mandela.
In August 1963, Nelson Mandela was again arrested and charged
with treason, conspiracy and sabotage. He was to come out of
prison only 27 years later.
1540
In 1991, Nelson Mandela became president of the ANC. His
negotiations with the president of South Africa ended the racist
system of apartheid. In South Africa's first free election in
1994, Nelson Mandela was elected president, a position he held
until 1999.
By making him an honorary citizen, parliament is paying tribute
to the exceptional contribution this man has made to democracy
and, through him, to the rightful struggle of those throughout
the world who are fighting for democracy and equality.
However how can we ignore the paradox of Motion No. 379 and
Bill C-11? Tomorrow, the act respecting immigration to Canada
will make a future Nelson Mandela an undesirable citizen in
Canada.
If Bill C-11 had been in effect 40 years ago and Nelson Mandela
had sought asylum in Canada, as a member of an organization for
the subversion by force of any government, to use the wording of
clause 34, he would have been inadmissible. He would have been
sent back to South Africa and accordingly to prison.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I thank the member for Markham
for his initiative. Democracy and the equality of all citizens
are the paramount values in our society, but democracy is all
the more precious for being fragile. We are all responsible for
keeping it alive. Many have given their lives for this ideal.
Charles de Montesquieu, an 18th century philosopher, wrote “To
love democracy is to love equality”.
Nelson Mandela will remain one of the strongest symbols of
democracy in the 20th century.
May his life be an inspiration for our democracy.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
very great honour for me to take part in this historic debate
today. I would like to thank the hon. member for Markham for
his leadership in introducing this motion.
Last week, I had the honour of seconding the motion when it was
made but unfortunately not passed.
[English]
It is a great honour to be here today to join with the leader of
my party in paying tribute to an extraordinary citizen, not just
a citizen of South Africa, but a citizen of the world and
hopefully soon to be an honorary citizen of Canada. Canada would
indeed be the first nation to recognize Nelson Mandela as an
honorary citizen. I think it is appropriate that we take that
historic step.
I am proud that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in
this and previous parliaments, and indeed before the founding of
the NDP in the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, worked
tirelessly along with people in the church movement, the labour
movement, social movements and in many other movements in
solidarity with the struggle against apartheid.
I would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by the
former prime minister, Prime Minister Mulroney, as well as Prime
Minister Diefenbaker, in helping to free Nelson Mandela.
I recall, as I am sure all members who witnessed it would,
watching television on the 11th of February in 1990 as Nelson
Mandela took those historic steps out of prison. I also had the
privilege, along with the Deputy Prime Minister and others, of
meeting Nelson Mandela when he came to Canada later that year. He
has dedicated his life to justice and to ending the scourge of
racism and institutionalized racism. His biography A Long
Walk to Freedom tells his incredible story.
I had the privilege in 1994 of joining in the official Canadian
delegation to witness the first free and democratic elections in
South Africa. What an extraordinary experience it was. I was
with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
I will never forget one occasion as we witnessed the voting in a
small village outside East London. A young man came up to the
voting station with an elderly woman in a wheelbarrow. He
indicated that he had been pushing this woman, his mother,
for many kilometres. They had come down from the mountains. I
asked him what drove him to take this incredible step. She
pulled out a rumpled piece of paper, and it was a photograph of
Nelson Mandela. She said “I've waited my whole life to vote
for this man”.
1545
That is the kind of inspiration that he provided not only to his
own people but to people around the world. Indeed, last August
my partner Max and I had the privilege of travelling to South
Africa and visiting the prison just outside Cape Town on Robben
Island, where Nelson Mandela was in prison for 27 long years. We
saw the rock quarry where he was forced to break rocks and we saw
his tiny prison cell.
We had the opportunity to meet with some of his fellow
prisoners. What an incredible story they had to tell, a story of
courage and of vision. What an inspiration to people around the
world, that spirit of reconciliation, the spirit of forgiveness
and healing, as my leader said, after 27 years.
Last week Nelson Mandela was described by the member for Calgary
West and indeed by the House leader for the official opposition
as a communist and a terrorist. As for communists, Nelson
Mandela himself has acknowledged that the South African Communist
Party played an extraordinary role in the struggle against
apartheid as indeed did the government and people of Cuba and
Fidel Castro, so we take no lessons on that at all.
[Translation]
In closing, I would also like to point out the irony to which my
hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois referred, that there are
provisions in Bill C-11 which would have kept Nelson Mandela out
of Canada. This is unacceptable.
[English]
In closing, I want to say again on behalf of all of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party what an honour it is to
recognize this outstanding citizen of South Africa, of the world
and, hopefully soon, of Canada with the highest honour our
country can bestow, the honorary citizenship of Canada.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour to rise to speak on this motion today. It was
very much an honour for me to be one of the seconders of the
motion and it is certainly an honour to support it. I compliment
the member for Markham for bringing it forward.
It is interesting to listen to all the members. Many of us here
have met Nelson Mandela. It seems that we all remember that
first meeting very clearly. I am one of those very fortunate
people who has met Nelson Mandela and I remember exactly the day
that I met him. I remember the circumstances. He had just been
released from 27 years in prison. He came to Canada at Canada's
invitation to speak to all of us in a joint session of the House
of Commons and the Senate to encourage us to support his
opposition to apartheid and to support democracy in his country.
At the time I met him it struck me that this man had just come
out of jail after 27 years. I was 45 at the time and would have
been 17 when he went into jail. I thought of all the things that
I experienced in that time between the age of 17 and the age of
45 years, and I thought of all of that part of his life that he
missed while he was breaking rocks in the prison on Robben
Island.
It was an incredible experience. We met him at the airport and
he treated us like the heroes. He treated us with the respect.
It was an awesome experience which I will never forget. He
exuded confidence. He came across as the most humble person and
he treated us like the honourable people, when it should have
been the reverse. It was truly an experience. As we can see,
every person here who has met Nelson Mandela will never forget
that visit.
During that visit Mr. Mandela went to Toronto, where tens of
thousands of Canadians went out in the streets to meet him, just
to say hi, show respect to him and listen to his words. He was
given a hero's welcome in Toronto. Here in the House he
addressed a joint session of the Commons and the Senate, an
honour usually reserved for heads of state, and of course at that
time he was not a head of state. He would be later on, but in
1990 he was not, having just come out of prison. Apartheid was
still in place. Even with all the things he was put through, in
the House he showed the same humility and urged us to continue
the battle to help him eliminate apartheid in his country.
He had an outstanding career, a career of outstanding
accomplishments.
1550
One of the members who spoke before me referred to courage and
vision and those are good words to describe Nelson Mandela. He
was and is a man of courage and vision, which has certainly led
to his stature and reputation around the world as one of the
world's citizens who has set an example for all of us.
Nelson Mandela has done an incredible job of creating firsts. He
established the first black law firm in South Africa. He was the
first democratically elected president of South Africa. He was
one of the very first student activists in South Africa. From
the time he was a very young person he was outspoken and
committed and a very effective activist, so effective that he was
even expelled from school, which started a long and interesting
career in activism for him. Nelson Mandela has received 50
international university honorary degrees as well as being
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Nelson Mandela raises the bar for all of us. He raises the bar
for all humanity. We totally support this motion and we will
welcome Mr. Mandela as an honorary citizen of Canada.
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a privilege and pleasure for me to join in this debate and
support the motion.
As one involved in the anti-apartheid movement for 20 years and
who served as Canadian counsel for Nelson Mandela, I would like
to pay tribute to the historical contribution of Nelson Mandela
to Canadians and people the world over. The conferral of this
honorary citizenship will have enduring resonance and inspiration
as Raoul Wallenberg has had in being our first honorary citizen.
I would like to briefly summarize what I mean by this historic
resonance and inspiration that this conferral of honorary
citizenship will have.
First, Nelson Mandela is the metaphor and message of the
struggle for human rights and human dignity in our time. If
apartheid was the ultimate assault on human rights and human
dignity, if South Africa was the first post-World War II,
post-Nazi country to institutionalize racism as a matter of law
and to seek to do so under the cover of being a western
democracy, then Nelson Mandela's struggle was the ultimate in the
struggle for human rights and for human dignity and against
racism and against bigotry.
Second, Nelson Mandela is the metaphor and message of the long
march toward freedom, of the struggle for equality, of the
struggle for democracy. The three great struggles of the 20th
century are symbolized and anchored in his personal struggle in
South Africa.
Third, Nelson Mandela is a metaphor for nation building, for
building a rainbow coalition, for taking diverse peoples, even
antagonistic peoples, races and identities, and welding them into
a rainbow coalition for nation building.
Fourth, he is a metaphor for hope, how one person could endure
27 years in a South African prison and emerge not only to preside
over the dismantling of apartheid but to become president of
South Africa and to build that nation. I do not know of any
other example in the 20th century that can serve as such a source
of inspiration and hope, particularly for the young people of our
time, those who are imbued with cynicism, those who believe that
this kind of inspiration does not exist any more.
Fifth, he is a metaphor, as in his Soweto speech, of education
as a linchpin for peace, of education as a precondition to a
culture of peace and against a culture of contempt.
Sixth, he is a metaphor for tolerance, for healing, for
reconciliation.
If one looks at the entire historical record, what we have is a
person who is one of the great humanitarians of the 20th century
and whose contribution to the struggle for human rights, for
democracy, for peace and for equality will endure and inspire all
in this country and the world beyond.
The Speaker: Pursuant to the order adopted the other day,
it is my duty to put the question to the House. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1555
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dr. Frene Ginwala,
Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my friend from Elk Island on
his normal loquaciousness and eloquence on the subject of
empowering individual members through the private member's bill
process.
If we were to have a vote for parliamentarian of the year, I am
sure that the member for Elk Island would rank in the top two or
three. I am sure members opposite would agree that he is one of
the most diligent, thoughtful and hardworking and one of the most
present of parliamentarians. He is always here and always
participating in debate.
For that reason, it is really quite disturbing to learn, as the
hon. member just instructed us, that in his several years in this
place he has not once had an opportunity to have a private
member's bill come forward and be deemed votable, or even
debatable as I understand it, because of the absurd arbitrariness
of the luck of the draw system we have here.
I would ask the hon. member if he could expound on that. Has he
in fact brought forward private members' bills on the order
paper? If so, why have they not been allowed to be debated in
the House?
Second, I had an experience where I had a private member's bill
on the non-controversial subject of opening the national archives
for research purposes for access to the census records of 1901.
Unfortunately, a government member, I am sure on the instruction
of the minister responsible, moved an amendment to my motion that
essentially gutted it and rendered it effectively meaningless.
All of the work I had done, dozens of hours of work, and all of
the tens of thousands of letters, phone calls, faxes and e-mails
from Canadians expressing concern about the issue and support for
the bill, was vitiated by a dilatory motion introduced by a
government member and passed by the government, which had the
effect of completely gutting and undermining my private member's
motion.
I wonder if my colleague from Elk Island would also reflect on
whether he believes that private members' bills, should they be
deemed votable, should be protected from such dilatory
legislative manoeuvrings on the part of the government.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for his very kind statements at the beginning of his
remarks. I do not know, perhaps I have some pathological
problem, but I actually do enjoy debates. I always have. One of
the greatest regrets I have is that too often in the House we are
debating with empty chairs. It is really difficult to change
hon. members' minds when we do not even know what their views are
in the first place.
I would like to say just a few things about this matter. First,
I have had a private member's bill on the list. Of course as the
hon. member knows, if one has even just one bill, his or her name is
on the list. My name has never been drawn.
I have had two private members' bills. One is urgent and it has
never been drawn. It deals with the issue of dates. If we use
only numbers for expressing dates, what does 2/3/1 mean? Is it
February 3? Is it the 2nd of March? Is it the year 1? Is it
the year 2002? Is it the year 2003? My bill is a very important
bill and simply provides for removal of the ambiguity if people
use numbers only. My second bill is a very important one, and
that is the one that states Canadian taxpayers should not have to
pay income tax on money they earn for the sole purpose of paying
taxes. That has to do with exempting from income money people
earn in order to pay their property taxes.
They are two very important bills. I have never had the
opportunity to even debate them let alone get them voted on.
1600
I would like to comment on his statement regarding amendments. I
have often thought about this, not only on private members'
business but also on supply day motions. One thing we started to
do was split our time for our first speaker so our second speaker
could make an amendment of little consequence to prevent the
other side from making one.
I remember in our first term here there was an occasion that
just blew my mind. We put a motion and the government made an
amendment that stated “all the words after the word “that” be
deleted and replaced by”, then it put in its own motion. It was
our supply day motion but the government totally gutted it by
deleting the whole thing.
Sometimes private members' motions have errors so it is
necessary to make technical amendments. I would like to see a
change so that the only amendments permitted for private members'
business would be those that would be put by permission of the
movers. In other words, if the mover can be persuaded that the
motion will not pass, unless it is amended, because of a technical
problem, then obviously that member would go along with the
amendment and it would be in order. However, if the mover did
not approve of it, then the amendment would be out of order and
the original motion would stand.
I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to speak
about those two issues.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I believe very strongly that this is one of the most
important motions that has come before the House since I have
been here. I believe this one measure, more than any other
element of parliamentary reform, would empower individual MPs and
hence their constituents.
Why do I say that? Because the whip, the Prime Minister's
Office or the leader's office cannot control the private members'
legislation or motions that members bring before this place. It
is precisely those motions which can reflect issues that the
political class and the centre of authority in the PMO on that
side refuses to have brought forward for debate.
Many sensible bills come before this place, but many deal with
issues which are not on the political agenda of the government or
for whatever reason, on the political agenda of party strategists
on the opposition side. No single step would do more to empower
us than to give every MP at least one votable private member's
bill. There is no good reason this ought not to happen because
if each of the 300 MPs had a votable motion or bill that could
easily be contained within the period of time for debate.
Here we are leaving the House two weeks before the parliamentary
schedule indicates. There is plenty of time. We could extend
hours, sit earlier, sit later or sit longer to debate issues
which are of importance to Canadians and to this parliament,
which are not brought forward on government orders.
I just want it on the record in questions and comments, and my
colleague may want to reply, that on behalf of my constituents I
firmly support this motion and I would hope that members
opposite, as private members not as partisans, would accept this
as a sensible incremental reform.
In closing, I understand that the so-called modernization
committee had given near unanimous approval for this, except for
one House leader for a minor party. That is unfortunate. I
understand that even the government was commendably prepared to
give support to a step of this nature to empower members through
more votable private members' bills. Therefore, we are almost
there. I would appeal to the House leader of that minor party to
reconsider why it is that he is being a roadblock to major
parliamentary reform in this measure.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I concur with what the member
for Calgary Southeast has just said.
I think back during my years here and I had the questionable
privilege for a time of being on that infamous subcommittee of
private members. I always felt ill at ease because of the very
subjective criteria that were used. There was really no way of
properly evaluating bills that should be votable or should not.
I understand that the criteria are now somewhat different but
still very subjective.
1605
I remember with fondness the leadership of the member for
Mississauga Centre who at that time was chairperson of that
committee. We were able, through some sleepiness on the part of
the Liberals, to bring through some amendments to the way private
members' business was conducted. One of the very significant
ones of course was that the voting would begin in the back rows
so that the members in the front row—
Mr. Jason Kenney: With unanimous consent.
Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was with unanimous
consent when there were no Liberals in the House and we were able
to sneak that through. It was a coup of major proportions.
The members in the back no longer had the luxury of waiting for
the members in the front to vote to see how they should vote, so
they actually had to think about it.
Recently we dealt with the issue of pay raises for members of
parliament. In my speech on that topic I said that I had a
motion to amend that particular bill. I suggested that all
Liberal members should be eligible for a raise in pay if they
could say what it was they voted against when they voted against
my amendment.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am always delighted to be received with such enthusiasm by my
colleagues across the way. It is particularly interesting today
how we are all just getting along so wonderfully well.
The debate we just listened to would have to be considered a
pretty historic debate in this place and in this country. I
would not even call it a debate. Perhaps it was a coronation, a
very justifiable and proud moment for all Canadians. This place,
which is the representative body for all Canadians, and the
government have made the decision to confer our citizenship,
something that we all believe in so deeply, to Nelson Mandela.
It is particularly interesting to see the carryover. I will
try not to spoil the glow of euphoria which seems to be here
because it is close to the break in session. However, there are
some things I feel I must point out in relationship to this
motion.
Let me also say right at the outset that I am delighted to vote
in favour of the motion. I made that decision, contrary perhaps
to the beliefs of some members opposite, before I discussed it
with anybody in my caucus or in my government. I looked at it
and said that it made sense.
I had one private member's bill in four years drawn out of the
lottery, which is very frustrating. That one was drawn in the
first three years of the parliamentary session, and I have yet to
have another one drawn in the first year of the new session. In
four years I have submitted eight or so for consideration. It is
a lottery and I have never been very lucky at those kinds of
things like gambling or buying lottery tickets, so it carries
over to getting my private member's bill brought to the front.
When my name was drawn, the private member's bill I picked was
one that would have created national standards for apprenticeship
training from sea to sea to sea, in every province and in every
territory. It seemed to make a lot of sense.
In fact we do have a program called the red seal program, which
recognizes apprenticeship programs across the country. However
it does not recognize the different categories of apprenticeship
or provinces and the territories. People may be qualified to
work in a particular trade in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and
Newfoundland, but they are not qualified to work in that same
trade with that same training in Ontario or Quebec.
There are numerous examples of that. It just seemed to me to be
awfully silly when one of the roles of the national parliament
was to fund post-secondary education. Where we have perhaps gone
off base is that we do not look at apprenticeship training as
post-secondary education, and we should.
1610
A ticket to practise as a carpenter, an electrician, a plumber,
a pipefitter or any of those is as equally important and
valuable, and in many cases more so, as a university degree.
When people need a plumber, they do not care if that person has a
university degree as long as he or she is capable of fixing
whatever the problem happens to be.
It was astounding to find out that our standards were all over
the map. I thought the best way to address this would be through
a private member's bill, so I drafted the bill and put it
forward. I waited patiently for my name to be drawn from the
lottery and after three years it finally was.
I was then told that I had a five minute opportunity to go
before a committee, which would then make a decision, after
hearing from me, on whether my motion would be votable in the House
of Commons. There was never a question about having a debate. As
we know, a member is given the opportunity in private members'
hour to come here and line up speakers.
By the way, I had support in just about every corner of this
place, with the exception of the official opposition, because it
transcended provincial boundaries. This is one of the
fundamental problems when dealing with private members' bills.
The basic policy during the selection of private members' bills
to be votable is that priority is given based on the fact that
they should transcend purely local interest, not be couched in
partisan terms and cannot be addressed by the House in other
ways. They also should not be part of the government business or
the normal, ongoing routine that the government might be
undertaking.
In my case it was not. In fact I attempted to have the
government adopt my private member's bill as government
legislation. There were problems in the bureaucracy. Why? Even
the bureaucracy thought that I was transcending provincial
boundaries and interfering in the jurisdiction of the provincial
governments.
Think about that. It is extremely frustrating. My private
member's bill was a bill which, if this motion were in place, would
have come on the floor of the House of Commons for a vote. In
my opinion, notwithstanding opposition from the official
opposition, I think it would have carried.
I am not asking that we take over apprenticeship training. I
recognize that in the province of Ontario, for example,
apprenticeship training works extremely well with our community
colleges. It is a very successful and fundamental program. I
believe more and more people should be, and I hope are,
encouraging their sons and daughters to look at this as an
opportunity for a different career.
Lord knows, we do not need more lawyers. We have plenty. We
also know that only a certain segment of our society perhaps will
be doctors. However we have a terrible shortage of skilled
tradespeople within the construction industry across the country.
For the foreseeable future, the boom appears to be very lively
for construction, whether it is something as fundamental as new
housing or whether it is in infrastructure and trying to repair
the damage which has occurred in our large communities as a
result of the neglect in funding infrastructure over the last
several years, as we all worship at the altar of tax cuts and
reduced government. We have seen a deterioration in the quality
of life as a result of all levels of government. The federal
government, I admit, and provincial governments have cut back on
the things that are fundamental and necessary to build good
communities.
If my motion had been allowed to come here perhaps we would be
seeing more people entering the trades and more qualified people.
We would have had an opportunity to increase this priority and
provide information to young people on their opportunities. The
red seal program works to a certain degree and national building
trades across the nation have instituted some good educational
programs. However even they are having difficulty in getting
their message across.
1615
By the way, my private member's bill had the support in writing
of many unions across the country that thought it was about time
the national government established national standards.
Why would something as seemingly sensible as national standards
for apprenticeship training fail to survive? It failed to
survive because of the attitude, perhaps not partisan but
certainly parochial, taken by members of the committee. I
cannot, will not and would not name names because the process has
been internal and I respect the fact that those people work on
the committee. However the committee interfered in provincial
jurisdiction.
I hope that by passing the opposition day motion we can move
away from the attitude which permeates the caucus, what is left
of it, of the official opposition. It has an attitude that if it
is federal it is bad and that if it is Ottawa it is too big and
interferes with what it wants to see happen in Alberta or British
Columbia.
We all know that the weekly caucus meetings of the Alliance, the
official opposition, are modelled after the show The Weakest
Link. We understand that they are having a problem. We
understand also that The Weakest Link appears to be their
leader. I do not want to be unfair but I want to talk about the
fact that the members have become very myopic.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is
the hon. member splitting his time? I think his time is up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): No. We are still on a
20 minute speech and 10 minutes questions and comments. The hon.
member has another 10 minutes.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry you must put
up with us for another 10 minutes but I will try to be gentle.
One of the things that underlies the differences we have in this
place is the constant criticism of the role of MPs. It is almost
like a sport. It is done to try to denigrate the role of MPs.
It is my submission that we have spent too much time over the
past several months dealing with certain faux pas on all sides.
If we turn on Canada AM at six o'clock in the morning all
we hear about is the latest group to leave the opposition caucus
or perhaps the latest member on the government side who has said
something he or she regrets or wishes to apologize for.
We as a body politic are being distracted on all sides of this
place by the nonsense that is going on internally within our own
caucuses and undermining our ability to represent our
communities. I say that in a spirit of non-partisanship which I
am not normally prone to do.
Mr. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In a show of non-partisanship with the member from Mississauga,
this is his opportunity. My point of order is this. Given that
the supply motion will pass with the seemingly unanimous consent
of all parties, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to make
private members' Motions Nos. 293 and 361 votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to
anyone watching, if there is anyone watching, that the strategy
of the opposition is to try to distract me. However let me
assure opposition members that they have failed for four years
and will continue to fail.
I have a point to make that they apparently do not want to hear.
When people stand in this place and continually assail members of
parliament and say, to quote many of them, that we are trained
seals or that we vote mindlessly, they know it is not the case.
1620
There are many examples of opposition members being expelled
from their own caucus for rebellious attitudes. We have seen
more discipline invoked on that side of the House in the last
couple of months than we have seen on this side of the House in
the last seven or eight years. Free votes are the standard
within the Liberal government.
The problem with the private member's issue is not so much the
government. The current process is pretty standard. We have a
former cabinet minister in the Manitoba legislature with us. I
am sure he would agree that legislature had a similar process,
although maybe not a lottery. We had a different one in Ontario.
However, private members' business was never taken seriously
unless it was some kind of spectacular motion, outrageous bill or
wonderful solution.
I had a private member's bill when I was an MPP in Ontario. I
had found out, quite to my surprise, that kids were spending
their lunch money on lottery tickets for professional sports
games. I found out quite by accident. I was lining up to make a
purchase in a store in my community and a youngster in front of
me was asking what the odds were on Monday night football. When
I asked what in the world that was about I was stunned to find
out there was no age restriction on the purchase of lottery
tickets to bet on professional sports.
I therefore put forward a private member's bill. I asked the
premier at the time to support it. It passed in three sessional
days with unanimous support from all parties in the Ontario
legislature. In a record vote, in record time and with record
numbers, we put an age restriction on the buying of lottery
tickets to gamble on professional sports.
Every once in a while an issue comes along that makes sense.
Everyone was shocked by it, including Bob Rae, the premier of the
day. If I had gone the normal route and had not been able to
seek unanimous consent it would have taken weeks, months, perhaps
never, to get my private member's bill approved.
There is absolute good sense, I hate to use the word common
sense because it has been wrenched away from some of us in
Ontario, in putting forth a motion like the one here today.
I will share some statistics. It is interesting that the
opposition party talks about democracy in this place, allowing
free votes, not using closure and all those things. I see the
former leader of the current opposition party, the old Reform
Party, is with us today and it is nice to see him here. When he
was leader of that party five of his MPs were suspended and
several others demoted from their caucus positions.
During the current leadership of course we all know of the gang
of eight. It may have swollen to 12; I missed the press
conference today that I was so anxious to see. Eight members
have been booted out of caucus because they dared to speak out
against their leader. How can they or any one representing that
party stand in their places, demand openness and accountability
and accuse our government of using discipline too much while that
party boots out eight members?
There may be as many as 12 members if the discipline reaches
some of the higher profile members who spoke out, such as the
member for Edmonton North, the first Reform member elected here.
The minute she spoke out in opposition to the leadership there
was a pretty loud pause as party members said that maybe they
should not kick the mother of the Reform Party out of caucus.
They backed off but now others have joined in. In many ways it
is a sad thing to see.
1625
Opposition members might not believe that I think it is sad.
However I spent five years in opposition in Ontario. I happen to
think the role of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is critical and
very important to the functioning of any parliamentary democracy.
The opposition spends its time setting up a firing squad,
getting in a circle and shooting inwardly. I do not know what it
thinks it can possibly accomplish by that. It then comes here
and tell us it has the solution. It says it will allow free
votes and release all its members from any kind of party
discipline. It then turns around the next day and boots half
them out of caucus. Obviously the Canadian people would see,
shall we say, inconsistencies in that regard.
Mr. David Anderson: Don't embarrass yourself.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Time will wind down, I am sure, and it
is in the control of the Speaker. He will let me know when my
time is up and the hon. members will have their opportunity if
they so choose.
I will also share that between 1990 and the year 2000 in the
Alberta legislature, with the obvious involvement of the current
Leader of the Opposition, closure was used 36 times to cut short
debate. The current Alliance leader admitted that at one point
closure was invoked after one hour of debate. It was done not in
response to filibustering on the part of the opposition but to
prevent the possibility of delay. That is astounding.
Alliance members then have the nerve to come into this place and
be obstreperous in an attempt to stop good legislation from going
through. They stand and cry foul because the government has put
in place a plan to ensure the legislation passes and carries the
day. It is mind boggling. It is curious beyond belief to think
they can stand there with any credibility whatsoever.
Having said that, I will try to be non-partisan and not get too
excited. I congratulate the member on his motion. I support it
and hope it passes. I am confident it will. I think it will
make the lives of all members on all sides much better.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I heard the member across the way saying something. He
was going in all directions and discussing all kinds of things,
so it took me a while to figure out what he was trying to say. I
picked up a couple of points and will ask him to clarify them.
The hon. member alluded to his own private member's bill in the
Ontario legislature and how it was, he said, passed in three
days. However I am sure it was less than the pay increase the
government moved through the House.
He said how great his bill was. The hon. member has been on the
government side and could have easily worked hard to make sure
the private member's bill was improved here. I would ask him if
it is the practice of the Ontario legislature to have every
private member's bill votable. If it is, I commend Ontario for
having a good democracy. Perhaps the member can tell us about
that. Are all private members' bills in the Ontario legislature
votable?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am not
100% sure. Let me tell hon. members why. As I recall the
private member's motion I passed was supported unanimously.
Certainly other private members' bills came forward. The Ontario
legislature does not have a lottery. I can tell the House that.
Members do not have to sit and wait forever to get on the docket.
There are substantially smaller numbers in terms of the members
of the legislature. The Ontario legislature has 103 members
versus our 301, so it is a bit easier to manage. However all
votes are votable on Thursday morning if members can get their
items through the process.
What members of the Ontario legislature do not need to do is go
before a committee of all members of the house and argue that
their motions should be votable. Members must make sure their
motions fall in line with the law, so they go through the legal
department.
The lawyers check it over to make sure it is in proper form and
it can be put forward. I would honestly have to check as to
whether or not it is a standard procedure to have them all
votable. My memory, which fades as I grow older, tells me that
most of them were voted on, and I think it is a standard
procedure.
1630
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, what a disappointment. A mind is a terrible thing
to waste and so is a seat in the House and 20 minutes of
parliamentary time. The member stood up and started and closed
his remarks by saying that he would be non-partisan on a motion.
I had just commended the government for supporting this
initiative, as had the member for Elk Island, and what did we
get? It was like a Texas bull; a point here, a point there and a
whole lot of bull in between.
The member cannot even answer a simple question about his own
legislature. I do not know if he even showed up there. Whether
or not private members' bills are votable, does he not agree that
this ought not to be a partisan issue?
Members opposite talk all the time about the need for
parliamentary reform. We know that in the shadows and in the
corridors they talk about their frustration with the great
concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office. This is
not a partisan comment. It is a systemic problem that applies to
governments generally, not just this one.
When we finally get the opportunity to actually take back some
power from the executive and put it back into the hands of the
legislators, like the member from Mississauga, we get instead
this kind of partisan rhetoric.
Does the member not think it would be more constructive and
helpful if all members were to treat these questions in as
non-partisan a fashion as humanly possible and if we work
together to improve the practices of the House? Does he not
believe that it would be a significant improvement in
parliamentary democracy and would empower us to better represent
our constituents if we had votable private members' bills?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the after
dinner speaker. Compared to my normal approach, I thought I was
very non-partisan. I do not know what they are upset about. I
thought I was quite gentle and balanced in saying that I support
the motion and I congratulated the member. It is just so hard
not to fall into the trap, and I am sorry I did, of pointing out
to Canadians the differences that occur between what members
opposite say and what they actually do.
The fact is that they have a caucus that is imploding before the
very eyes of all Canadians and the infighting is detracting them
from doing their job in this place, which is to support motions
like this. I say to the member who just asked the question that
if members of his party could show me just once in one speech
where they were non-partisan, maybe it would rub off and they
would see a little more of it from me.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the
hon. member speak in the House. I stumble when I say that at
times.
The hon. member spoke about discipline in parties, particularly
our party, the opposition, and he claimed that we wrangle in our
dissidence and so on and so forth.
1635
The truth speaks volumes on the other side when we actually see
what takes place on the government benches. When there is a
votable private members' business item in the House, all the
members on the other side vote with the government regardless of
how they feel. Discipline speaks volumes on that side and very
rarely do we see those hon. members stand in this place.
If they feel that a private member's bill from this side or any
side is worth supporting, do they actually put their money where
their mouths are and stand? How many times has the hon. member
actually voted in favour of an item of private members' business
during the time that he has been here?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I always find it curious
that people get upset when someone comes to Ottawa under a
particular banner, in their case Reform, now Alliance and in our
case Liberal. I am a member of the Liberal team and people should
never be shocked that I support my team. It is most interesting
to use the analogy of someone playing on my hockey team and
shooting the puck into my net on purpose. I do not want that
player on the ice any more.
It is pretty fundamental in our system that the vast majority of
us, perhaps with the exception of the member for Wild Rose who
wins 90% of the votes, come to this place as a result of the
allegiance to the party for which we run. In fact individual
members will influence between 5% and 8% of the vote.
It should come as no shock to any member that we wind up
supporting the particular party for which we were elected in this
place. I object to the criticism that we would not support
things that are unusual or different. Many of my members over
here have voted for private members' bills against the
government.
The point is that the motion today would eliminate that issue
and should eliminate it so that we can all stand and vote on what
are private members' bills. That is why they are called private
members' bills. We on all sides of the House should be able to
make up our own minds on how we vote.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the motion dealing
with private members' business. I would also like to indicate
that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Provencher.
It was quite interesting to listen to my friend on the other
side speaking about partisan politics and saying that they do not
talk partisan politics. The problem is that when he starts on
the rhetoric it is necessary for us to set the record straight.
Talking about setting the record straight, I would like to say
that the motion we are debating was introduced and brought in by
my hon. colleague sitting next to me. I commend him for doing
so. I know he was on the committee and was extremely frustrated
with the way things were going so he introduced this motion.
Despite what my friend on the other side said about all the
problems or little turbulences my party is going through, I would
like to tell Canadians that we have been elected to represent
them in parliament and to hold the government accountable and
that is exactly what we are doing.
The introduction of the motion dealing with private members'
business is to ensure that members of parliament from all parties
have the right to stand in parliament to speak on behalf of their
constituents.
When my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona asked the member a
question about how many times he had voted independently, he gave
us a great analogy of playing on a hockey team. As Canadians
have said time after time, and if he goes back to his riding and
polls his constituents perhaps they will tell him, they want him
to speak on their behalf.
That is what he has been sent here for, not this team business.
There are no goals to be scored here. We have to stand up and
represent our ridings, and that is what my colleague from
Edmonton—Strathcona was asking of my friend on the other side.
1640
I return to the issue of private members' business. This is my
second term in the House. I am very grateful to my constituents
of Calgary East that sent me here to debate issues they feel are
important. Based on that we try very hard to introduce private
members' bills. It is one of our vehicles as members of
parliament who are not in government or who are not ministers to
bring the concerns of Canadians to the floor of the House. It
was brought in over the years so that members of parliament could
democratically represent their ridings.
During my first term as a rookie MP I submitted a lot of private
members' bills. Lo and behold not one was chosen. For four
years I have stood on this side of the House and I could not
address those issues. When I was returned to the 37th parliament
I reintroduced the same bills and two of my private members'
bills were selected in the lottery system. I thank God for
having my bills selected because it is only through His hand that
these bills were selected.
When I was preparing my private member's bill I consulted
Canadians across the country and received their input. Those
Canadians who felt these were important issues got excited. One
of my bills dealt with emancipation day to recognize Canada's
contribution to the abolition of slavery. Members of the black
community were extremely excited and happy. They gave me full
support. They even came here from Toronto to recognize this
important day.
I also had a private member's bill dealing with a minimum
sentence of two years for repeat break and enter offenders. Over
the last parliament I went across Canada. I spoke on radio talk
shows. I received the support of Canadians, including the chiefs
of police of Toronto, Saskatoon and Calgary, the police
association of Calgary and the Canadian Police Association. There
was a huge amount of support from all those groups. When I
brought my bill forward I thought it would be a non-partisan
event and that it would be debated in the House of Commons so
that Canadians would know on which side of the issue the
government would be.
The subcommittee that was set up to select private members'
bills said that my bill would not be votable. Suddenly all the
hard work and excitement and all the associations that provided
support meant nothing. With it saying no, all I could do was stand in
the House to speak to the bill for 10 minutes. I spoke for 10
minutes on the bill. I might as well have gone home and spoken
in front of a mirror because there was nothing I could do about
it. I was angry. I spoke, sat down and said goodbye to all the
effort that was put into the bill.
I reintroduced that bill in the House today. Unless we change
the system the same thing will happen. All the groups that work
hard to bring issues to parliament will not have their voices
heard because the government has a different agenda. The
government's agenda is not to represent every Canadian. It is
running the country and it has a different agenda, but as members
of parliament we can bring issues forward through private
members' bills. We spend a lot of time getting support. Then we
come to the House, and why is it that three or four people decide
whether or not a bill will be votable?
1645
My friend on that committee felt frustration arising out of it
and brought forward the motion we are debating today. I was very
pleased, in one degree, when I listened to the government House
leader say he will support the bill. All the other parties have
said they will support the bill, so let me say that I am
literally looking forward to returning to parliament in September
when private members' bills are votable.
Now I can go out there and work hard as I can to bring a bill
here and I can tell Canadians, yes, it will be brought to the
House, it will be put to a vote and we will vote on it. If the
members over there on the government side and other members feel
this is an important bill and vote for it without following party
lines and not playing at teamwork, this will become a House that
will gain the respect of Canadians.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak in
regard to private members' bills and I have to agree 100%. I
also agree with my colleague who brought forward the motion.
I too had the misfortune of sitting on the private members'
committee. I sat there and saw good bills from all parties in
the House brought forward. I watched the committee members
bargaining away and heard them saying that bills could not come
forward because they were too controversial. I myself had the
same frustrations with some of my own bills. As a matter of fact
I sat there in front of the committee on a bill regarding
separation and had the committee tell me that the bill was too
political to bring forward in the House of Commons. The
committee said it was too political. This is supposed to be the
most political House in the land and yet my bill was too
political to be brought forward for debate in the House of
Commons.
I have to agree with the hon. member when he says that if this
comes forward tonight—and it should pass—finally we will have a
House that will truly represent the people, the constituents and
the wishes of all parties in the House to see some good
legislation come forward.
Why does the hon. member think it has taken so long for the
frustration level to build up in members from all sides of the
House? This is the hon. member's second term and my third term.
Why has it has taken so long for this to come forward in the
House? Does the hon. member have any answer for that?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I can speculate. It
served the purpose of the government. As I said, the government
has a different agenda and the government controls this whole
situation. By not allowing bills to become votable, by going
through the committee, the government could control what is going
on. We have seen that happen all year. It was one way for the
government to have total control of parliament.
My ex-leader, the MP from Calgary Southwest who is in the
chamber today, has stated on many occasions that the House has
become dysfunctional. As a matter of fact he has indicated his
desire to leave politics because, as he has said, the House has
become dysfunctional. He is a member whom Canadians highly
respect, a member who has worked tirelessly for the country, and
who, as the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber, has
firsthand knowledge of how dysfunctional the House has been.
To answer my colleague, that is why Canadians were losing
respect for the chamber, because it was dysfunctional and
everything was controlled by the government, by a small
government and a concentration of power in the PMO.
This is the first step. I can speculate that the reason it is
the first step and the government has agreed to this is that
because finally even Canadians outside have spoken out and have
said they need some substance out of the House. They have said
“We have given them a pay raise. They had better deliver”. I
am glad that we have been given this opportunity to work for
that.
1650
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talks about this place being dysfunctional. Would he
agree with me that it is because we have been spending all our
time at our jobs in Ottawa dealing with the issues that surround
individual MPs or all of the problems that are occurring within
the caucus of the hon. member's party? Would he agree with me
that this dysfunction just might be what is causing Canadians to
lose respect for MPs and for this institution?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent
question and I thank the hon. member for asking it. Today this
motion, this hard work, was put through by my colleague working
as the official opposition. That is what we are doing over here.
That is what our job is as the opposition and we are doing it.
That is why today we are debating the motion. I remind the
member that the motion came from the Alliance, not the Liberals.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak on the supply motion because I
believe private members' business is a vital tradition in
parliament and I believe that we need to revive the spirit of the
tradition in order to maintain the confidence we have in our
democracy and in our parliamentary system. Despite some of the
cynicism we hear, people are still convinced that it is through
parliament that true democratic reforms come, and we need to
ensure that we revitalize our democracy.
I would like to begin my remarks by citing a 1985 report of the
McGrath committee, which was established to make recommendations
in the House in respect of House reform. I will quote from page
2 of the report:
If the private member is to count for anything, there must be a
relationship between what the private member and the institution
of Parliament can do and what the electorate thinks or expects
can be done.
There is a connection among the member, the institution and the
electorate. This is a fundamental point of what we are trying to
do here, I think. The people of Canada elect us their
representatives to the House of Commons and they have the
expectation that each of us will be permitted to be productive
and useful members with ideas and initiatives of our own.
When members are authorized to be little more than voting
machines or seat warmers, it not only feeds into our own cynicism
about what we are doing here but more significantly it fosters
public cynicism, pessimism and mistrust in parliament and in
politicians in general.
I have been a member of parliament for about six months and, if
one does not guard against it, I think cynicism can overwhelm
one. Except for minor variations with government bills, we know
exactly what will happen time and again. The government
introduces a bill, we debate it, we sit through committee
testimony and we propose amendments, which are usually shot down.
We debate it some more and then we vote and the government bill
passes. This is a fact of life when we have a majority
government.
I served in a provincial legislature. I understand the need for
majority governments to control the agenda, to move certain
issues through. I understand and respect it, but the realities
of a majority government to me present all the more reason to
revisit the procedural aspects of private members' business.
1655
I do not think the two are inconsistent. The agenda of a
government is a legitimate thing, but there is also the agenda of
private members. Private members are the backbone of the House.
The executive is here to serve the private members, but in our
modern age parliament has been stood on its head. In order to at
least regain some balance, this initiative by my colleague from
the Canadian Alliance is crucial. I think Canadians expect it of
us.
Private members' bills and motions now are not effective. Yet
they are really the only way that a member outside of cabinet,
whether on the government side of the House or on the opposition
side, can advance his or her own proposals and initiatives.
Government business is government business and that is fine, but
private members' business should not be dictated by government,
directly or indirectly.
Right now the process is that we have a subcommittee of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which includes
just six members in the House who determine what private members'
bills will be heard. All initiatives of members outside of
cabinet are governed by only six individuals, and the consent of
those six individuals must be unanimous to make it votable. Six
individuals control the entire private members' agenda.
Since the beginning of the 37th parliament, Alliance MPs have
had 24 items drawn to be placed on the order of precedence, but
only 2 items have been deemed votable. In the second session of
the 36th parliament, there was a total of 772 bills and motions
introduced. Only 70 of those were drawn and of those only 21
were made votable, only 21 private members' bills out of 772.
Yet we continue to go back to our constituents and tell them “I
want to represent you and I want to represent the concerns in my
constituency”. Yet six members in the House, unless we acquire
unanimous consent, will shut down the voice of my constituents
each and every time, only six members.
Why does this happen? Let us say I get an idea in my head. The
member from Mississauga might not think it is a good idea but it
is an idea nonetheless. I get an idea in my head, I call
legislative counsel to draft the bill, the bill goes on the order
paper, it is drawn to be placed in the order of precedence, it is
debated, it is dropped from the order paper, and we never hear
about it again if this six person subcommittee has not already
decided that we ought to vote on it.
What are the criteria for the votable items? I do not know. I
am just a private member. I am only here to represent my
constituents. I do not know what criteria this secret committee
applies. Who influences these criteria? Who tells these six
members how this is done? I do not know and I also do not know
if the House will ever find out. We can draw up all kinds of
lists and say this is what we will do, but who influences the
agenda? Because if that agenda does not come before the House,
we know that the government influences that agenda. As long as
the government does not think it too controversial or too
divisive or too embarrassing, it might allow it.
1700
Even if I am wrong on the six members, as some members from the
Liberal Party are saying, the subcommittee gives the perception
of a star chamber where decisions are made in secret, away from
the public, away from the eyes of the electorate who have a right
to know.
An hon. member: There is somebody from your own party on
that committee.
Mr. Vic Toews: They say even a member of my own party is
on that committee. Yes, and we are not allowed to say in the
House why certain things are not made votable. Can I stand up
today and say in the House why a certain thing was not made
votable? We cannot say it in the House. Those are the rules and
the Liberal members know that. I cannot say it was a New
Democrat who shut down a matter that was non-votable. I am not
allowed to say it to the members. I am not allowed to say it
here in the House. We all know that, so let us not pretend.
I believe the best way to reflect the democratic nature of our
parliament is to make all private members' bills and motions
votable. I think we could reduce the number of bills, but I say
we should let them all be votable.
I have to stand in support of this motion and I would ask all of
you to support it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I ask the hon. member to address
his comments to the Chair.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sorry that the member has such a cynical view of what happens.
In fact some of the information he has presented has cast a light
on this that quite frankly is not a fair reflection. For
instance, he gave the example that only 21 private members' items
in the second session of the 36th parliament out of 772 were
actually votable.
First, the second session of the 36th parliament had private
members' business on every required day. There was only room for
that many, for 72. We could have had a million bills put in and
it would not have mattered. We could only deal with 72 during
the second session of the 36th parliament. In fact, 21 out of
the 70 were votable. That is as prescribed by the rules of the
House.
The member also asked about the criteria. The criteria are
published. He also talked about some secret committee. There
are two members of the government and four members of the
opposition on the committee. It is not just somebody controlling
it. They happen to be our representatives.
The member made one statement that I really disagree with. He
said that private members' business is ineffectual. I want him
to answer this question. Does he know what Bill C-204 was in the
last parliament? Does he know it was never drawn? Does he know
that it was never voted on? However, does he know that it was in
the last throne speech and that we now have parental leave for a
full year because a private member had an idea and put it in a
bill?
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, why would I want to get up
and do anything but praise the one member who had an idea and who
was lucky enough to get it through this maze?
What this member did not tell the people of Canada in his
question is that even if the bill meets all the criteria, it
still does not mean it is votable. There is still a huge element
of discretion, the discretion that is influenced by political
thought and political correctness, by questions like “Is this
divisive? Will this be embarrassing?”
I am not disagreeing with the member. These are my observations
after being here for six months. Maybe I am mistaken. Maybe I
will grow to be just as cynical as he is.
What I am saying is that the government presently has a very
effective means of presenting its agenda and getting it through
the House.
Every government bill is votable unless the government itself
hoists it. However, that is called government business. Why can
private members' business not simply be the business of private
members? If a private member is lucky enough to get the bill
into the House, it should be votable unless that private member
deems it not to be votable.
1705
Congratulations to whoever the member was on Bill C-204. I
commend that member. That is a shining example of what can be
done with many more bills. I would encourage the member to
support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened carefully to the words of the hon.
member for Provencher, and I must say that he made several points
of interest to us in his intervention.
As for his final remark about not knowing the criteria, I would
state that, just by chance, I have them here before me. I would
like to make a comment and then ask a question.
In April 1999, in a report to the House, the standing committee
on private members' business established the new list of criteria
for selection of votable private members' business.
There are five points. What is important is that, in the House
of Commons, it is his party that ought to inform him on this, or
he ought to contact the committee to find out what the criteria
are.
Should he not get these directly from the House of Commons or
from his party?
[English]
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already
answered that. I do not have any dispute with the criteria, but
if the member is saying that these criteria will determine that
these items are in fact votable, he is wrong. My understanding
is that even if every criterion is met an item is still not
votable. There is still that hidden amount of discretion. As
hon. members, as private members on both sides of the House, we
need to maybe narrow down the number of bills but make them all
votable so that the exercise is a realistic one.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been sitting here listening for the last couple
of hours to three years of my life being bandied about.
The member opposite who introduced this motion and who I respect
greatly knows that I spent two years as chair of the committee,
in 1996-97, and that I just spent the last year chairing it.
Despite what members think, the easiest thing in the world for me
would be to vote to make everything votable, tomorrow, tonight,
whenever we vote on it, because it would get rid of a very tough
job that I am forced to do.
However, I honestly have not made up my mind how I will vote
because I do not believe it will help the private members'
process to make everything votable. I sincerely believe it will
diminish the process. It will make it partisan. It will make it
irrelevant. I have to learn to get over that.
Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I forgot to say that I will be
splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.
The process has developed and improved since the 1980s. Several
people have referred to the McGrath report. We brought in
modifications in 1997-98. Although the party opposite takes
credit for slipping that through the House, some of those
modifications sprung full blown from my head, one of which was
voting from the back rows down because it took the obligation
away from the back rows of both sides of the House to follow the
front rows.
We streamlined the criteria so that members can bring in private
members' bills that do focus on one province or one area. Before
it was not allowed. We brought in and tested the one hundred
signature rule because people were very frustrated with the
lottery. We brought in another one that no one has referred to
all day, which is an obligation for a committee to report back
within six months so an item could not be deep-sixed at a
committee. Otherwise it is deemed brought back in its entirety.
We have made amazing progress and I would like to take some
credit for that. That is why I am not sure. It is like the old
adage “Be careful what you ask for because you might get it”.
We may find out that it is not what we really wanted.
In regard to the lottery, I think we will be dropping it because
of the confusion. People do not realize when they sign in the
hundred signature rule whether they are supporting the concept of
the bill or signing to get it to go through without the lottery
or signing it because they think an item should be votable. We
have had some confusion on that, as members know.
1710
The criteria, as I mentioned, have been diminished. They are
down to five simple criteria, one of them an improvement that
says if the member is from out west the member can bring in an
issue that is strictly for the west and the member's item will
not be thrown out because it does not apply to the whole country.
I have a concern that a lot of the private members' bills we see
now are reruns of government bills that passed through the House.
Gun control has come up many times in the lottery. I do not know
how many times the House could take another run at a bill like
that. We would be opening ourselves to a lot of that.
Members would need to filter the bills no matter what is
decided. If the House decides that they should all be votable,
they will still have to be looked at using some criteria that we
have talked about.
The idea of making everything votable has been the subject of
two surveys, one in 1998 and one in 2001. What has been
consistent in those surveys is that people are disaffected.
People do not like the system. In 1998, 71% were unhappy with
the system. This year 77% are unhappy. In 1998, 48% wanted
everything votable and this time we have 62%.
However, I think it is also important to note that only 109
people out of 301 responded from the House. Seventy-five of
those people have tabled bills. Fifty-six have had them drawn
and 36 have had them made votable. I do not know where the
statistics I have been hearing bandied about came from, but fully
33% of those bills have been votable, which is exactly what we
were asked to do.
Only two-thirds, two or maybe three bills before 1993, ever
became law in this country. One was the Prime Minister's, which
named Air Canada. Another in 1993 was my opponent's, whose bill
banning hookah pipes was passed, which I am sure has had a
devastating effect on the country.
We have had a dozen passed and made into law since 1993. So
despite the bleating to the contrary that the Liberal government
has been restricting democracy, I think we have done very well.
If I sound like I am taking this personally, I am. I have spent
a lot of time on this.
I think members will be very concerned when they see that with
the 312 hours allocated we could get 104 bills and motions
through in three and a half to four years. How would members
choose those bills? We would have to go back to the nasty old
lottery. The opportunity for whipped votes would increase
because there is far too much for people to pay attention to in
the House. If everything is made votable, I think the adage
after a while will be “if it is proposed by the opposition we
will vote against it”.
It would reduce the significance of the bills because anything
could get through. As for the ones that do get through now in
this nasty process that has been described, everybody pays
attention to them because they have already come through one
hurdle.
Many members choose to introduce motions and bills, as the
member for Mississauga South mentioned. They never make it into
votability, but the concept gets introduced. Somebody pays
attention to it. Even though it was not votable it got an hour
in the House and sometimes the government pays attention to a
good idea even if it was not votable.
I am very concerned that we would get into the old U.S. style
system whereby paid lobbyists and huge corporations will be
forcing members to put bills into the House as their private
members' bills with threats or with the rewards offered by
companies that have a lot of money. I think we can see that
happening in the States.
As I mentioned members would need a screening process, because I
cannot understand after living this for three out of the last
seven and a half to eight years how it would be done.
Some members would also have an obligation to put bills forward
which would reflect small, noisy, highly skilled lobby groups in
their ridings. Members might not agree with them. Members can
see that when they put in petitions. Some of the petitions
members put in they agree with. Some petitions members have hard
time putting in, but it has to be done. Members might also be
subjected to intense lobbying by single issue groups in the
ridings that say they know there is one bill that is votable and
they have one they want put in.
Despite the fact we have been royally dissed today, I would like
to thank everybody who has served on the committee. It is not an
easy task. I actually had one of my own members of my own
government kick my door and leave marks all over it because he
was angry that we did not make his bill votable and he thought I
had something to do with it.
It is a tough job. I compliment the members of the opposition
because it is not always unanimous, but it is by consensus, and
it is based on criteria and, yes, it is subjective. However, I
think we function well and I am very proud of everybody who sits
on that committee.
1715
According to the process already ongoing, we have a survey and
the results. We have the Kilger committee looking at
parliamentary reform. I really believe the motion itself is
redundant because it asks that all private members' bills be made
votable, and we have heard from the government side that it is
ready to do that.
In summary, I care very much about private members' business.
That is why I have been cautious since we started the review in
1997. If I did not care about it I would say that we should just
let it go because it does not matter. I am very concerned that
members will get a package that they do not really understand.
They will not know what happened to them. They will not
understand how difficult it will be to fight off the lobbyists,
the heavy groups in their ridings that will try to force them to
do this or that and stand up in the House of Commons and
sometimes fight for things they do not understand or believe in.
I really believe each bill will become less and less important
as more bills are introduced without any screening process.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to a couple
of things the hon. member said, and I respect very much the work
she has done. However I believe we can make it work. If it
works in other jurisdictions, why can it not work here?
We heard an example given by her own colleague who had
experience in the Ontario legislature, where all bills and
motions that went through were deemed votable. If it can work
there, why can it not work here? Are we somehow that much
different that it cannot work here?
She expressed the concern that there would be too many whipped
votes. I maintain it must continue to be a free vote in order
for it to be meaningful and that we must take more of an interest
in the issues that are before the House. This has the potential
to revitalize parliament. Therefore, we should try to make it
work, and we can make it work.
Why are the bills or motions not deemed votable even when all
the criteria are met? Obviously, they are not and that is a
concern.
Last, if an issue arises that the government has had in the
House, would that not indicate that Canadians still had a concern
about that issue and that we should still listen to those
concerns? I do not think that is an argument for not bringing an
issue to parliament.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I have a huge respect
for the member who just asked the question, but I will correct
him anyway.
I think the member for Mississauga West was not absolutely sure
if all the bills are votable in the Ontario legislature. Since I
have never been a member there I am not sure either. Therefore,
I do not think we can use that as an example of something that
works because we are not absolutely sure if it does turn out that
way.
The whipped votes are a serious concern of mine. It is not
because we are whipped on this side of the House on private
members' bills at all. We are not.
As a perfect example, I would cite the bill put forward by the
member for Davenport, which is very difficult for the government
to cope with right now. I am sure when we selected that as a
votable bill we were less than popular with our side of the
House. However the labelling of genetically modified foods was
an issue of significance to the whole country. The committee, in
a non-partisan way, made that votable.
Therefore, I am not concerned that it is going to be whipped
that way. I am concerned that we will have a volume of material
come through that will be a little bewildering. If it is assumed
that we will be able to force 301 members to pay close attention
to every bill, I cite the fact that we had 109 responses out of
301 on a survey that was very carefully worded, very carefully
put together and hand delivered to every office. We will have a
really hard time ensuring that. I am not just being pessimistic,
I am legitimately concerned.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the
member for Mississauga Centre. She has done a pretty good job in
a very difficult position. I had the opportunity to serve with
her when she was chairperson. It was an interesting challenge
and very frustrating, yet at all times she managed to sort of
keep her head and keep us moving forward.
1720
With respect to the actual choices, basically our motion today
would take away from her and her committee the right to scuttle a
bill before it comes to the House. In other words, we are saying
that all private members' business should be votable and it would
be then the duty of the member to make sure the criteria was met
so it would have a reasonable chance of passing.
Does she agree with that? Does she support the motion we have
today?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, as I already have
mentioned, I am having trouble with it because I am more
pessimistic than the member is. I legitimately believe a year or
two from now we will look at this and say oops. It is like the
100 signature rule. I am not optimistic about it.
Whether or not I will support it will be one of those moments
when just before the vote comes to me, I will make up my mind in
a non-partisan way.
As the member for Elk Island mentioned, he also sat on the
committee under my tutelage. I was very pleased he was there.
He is a very mathematical person and liked to give things points.
It was a very subjective committee, so I admire him for not
killing me in the process.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
supporting the motion today.
Private members' business has been a big part of my career as a
parliamentarian. Since 1993 I have had the honour of having over
20 bills and motions presented and tabled in the House. I also
had about eight items selected in the lottery. Half of them
turned out to be votable. I have had some success, and it was
very rewarding. However the best outcome one could have for a
private member's item is not going through the whole gyration and
cycle and having the government adopt the item and implement it.
That is what is most important.
In fact that is exactly what happened in the last parliament
with Bill C-204 extending parental leave to a full year from six
months. My bill was sat there for six months and never got drawn
in the lottery. However the government decided to proceed on it
and included it in the throne speech and the very next budget. It has
now been implemented and is a very important and valued program
for Canadians. The bill itself never got a moment of debate in
the House other than on the budget. There are many ways to look
at this.
Since we will support the motion, one of the things I would like
to do is open the envelope a bit and propose to the House another
way to do this. I do not believe that everyone can have a
votable item. It is just not practical. I do not believe that
everyone is interested in having a votable item either. Our
history shows us that a very small percentage of House members
even care to participate in private members' business. They have
other responsibilities and are not prepared to do the work that
is involved.
All members who wish to participate should submit their names. I
do not how many that would turn out to be. Then we could have
one lottery only to determine the order in which the members
would bring forward their items. All we establish is their
placement on the list so members can plan for when their items
will come up. I think that is the best way to ensure we include
members who want to participate, and to establish an order, which
has to be done somehow. A lottery seems to be as fair as
anything.
Regarding the issue of the private members' committee business,
the credibility issue is something that will be very difficult to
deal with. I believe the committee should continue to exist but
it should be there to ensure that items meet the published
criteria. The committee should say yea or nay. If it says nay a
communication should be passed on to the member proposing the bill
or motion that the criteria has not been met. That is its
job.
How do we determine votability? Members who have been to the
private members' business committee and have done their three
minute dog and pony show know that there very few questions are
asked. In fact, very few substantive questions are asked because
the members are dealing with dozens of items.
They cannot be prepared themselves. They cannot do the job. It
really is not doing anyone's bill justice quite frankly.
1725
Most members know that private members' items cannot be complex
animals. They have to be quite focused and quite specific
because we do not have a lot of time to grasp the attention or
the interest of the House to support it. It has to be somewhat
focused. We can see by those that have been successful over the
last few years in the parliaments that many of them are quite
straightforward.
The one I remember and thought was excellent had to do with
employment insurance benefits and what happened to someone who
was called on jury duty. The old law said people would lose
their EI benefits because they were being paid for jury duty. It did
not make sense because jury duty paid $10 a day and employment
insurance paid something different. I thought it was an
important bill. It was a small one but an important one because
it was an inequity situation. I think those are good, solid
types of bills.
With regard to the votability, I like the process that we went
through recently. We operated under a committee of the
whole procedure whereby members who were interested assembled
around the Chair in somewhat informal fashion. I would like to
see members whose bills or motions have met the criteria and have
been approved by the committee come to the House, do their five
minutes and give their best reasons and arguments why their item
should be votable. They would then be subject to questions and
comments from anyone who wanted to participate. A record and
transcript would be available for people who were interested.
Members could ask questions if they did not understand something, or
if they thought the motion was off base or thought it was a great
idea. There would be some feedback, which we have never had. We
would then have a process. Members would determine whether an
item was worthy of taking up any more of the House's time and
whether, was worthy of additional hours of debate.
We could take that committee responsibility and put it as part of a
committee of the whole. We could let members stand in front of
their peers, make their best case and ask their peers to consider
it. I think in one evening, with a five minute question and
comment on a five minute or three minute presentation, we could
probably do six bills and motions in one evening. We could then
have a vote on a scheduled day of votes to determine the items
with which we would proceed. It would be open, transparent and
fair. Members would have to do their work to earn the support of
their colleagues for this.
Private members' business should have the same status as
government bills. The process we go through has a subsidiary
role in terms of importance in how it is dealt with in the House.
Once this Chamber decides an item should be votable, it should be
accorded all the attention that any other government bill
should have. That would mean if members wanted to debate it for
more than two hours or three hours they could.
Also, when a bill goes to committee then comes back, it should
not have to go to the bottom of the list and wait 30 sitting days
before it can be brought up again. It should depend on when the item
should be called and there can be rules there.
I agree with many members that private members' business ought
to be accorded the same weight of importance in this place
because it is important not just for the members proposing it, it
is also important to the people of Canada because their
representatives are here.
That kind of process basically puts the challenge to members. It
is an important challenge not to be frivolous, not to abuse the
process, because if we come forward here and put items in front
of our peers which are not meritorious of taking up the House's
time people will develop a reputation. We know that to get a private
member's item or anything passed in this place a member must earn
the respect of colleagues on all sides. Members pay a price when
they play partisan and petty politics in this place and do things
that they should not. When they embarrass this place, they
should not expect to earn the respect of the House for their
bills or their motions.
The challenge is to us all. I think we are looking for
transparency, but I do not think we should try for a panacea
whereby everyone gets everything they want. That is just not
possible.
Let us be reasonable and professional. Let us be members of
parliament and make decisions based on merit. Those who do good
work and earn respect and credibility within this place are the
ones who will be successful in parliament.
1730
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member has participated very enthusiastically in
private members' business, not only in the process but also in
promoting his own private members' bills.
With respect to votability he said that some members did not
want to participate and never prepare private members' bills or
motions. That would certainly reduce the number.
It was proposed earlier today during debate that we might
increase the number of hours allotted per week to private
members' business by adding an hour first thing in the morning
and another in the evening. Another suggestion was to have all
day Friday devoted to private members' business.
If Friday were devoted to private members' business, would that
not make it very difficult to ever promote the idea? Most
members would take Friday as a day to go back to their riding as
many of them do that now for legitimate reasons. It would mean
that we would be trying to promote the idea of private members'
business without members being present to hear the debate. When
it would come time to vote it would be very difficult. Could the
member respond to that idea and how we would handle it?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the principle that I would
prefer to follow would be that private members' business be
accorded the same attention as government bills. I would not
want to ostracize or somehow categorize private members' business
as something bunched together and brought forward on a day when
somebody might not be here.
If private members' bills are to be given the credibility and the
respect they deserve, they should be built into the calendar so
that they get regular attention in the scheduling of
parliamentary business. I would have some difficulty in
suggesting that we do this on Fridays. It would be contrary to
the spirit of equality between the status of bills.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I had a funny idea. We talked
a bit about MPs getting a raise in salary. There is no doubt in
my mind that increasing the authenticity of private members'
business by making things votable would do something to justify
paying a member of parliament an executive level salary.
This is my hare-brained idea. What would happen if we were to
tell members that a random roll call would be taken at some time
every month during private members' business and receipt of one's
salary for that month would be dependent on the member being in
the House during private members' business? It is a hare-brained
idea but maybe it would work.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I think the member speaks
for himself. I would like to take the last moment that I have to
reinforce the basic principle that although I would like to have
all members have everything they want, good bills require special
attention, research and a lot of work. I do not believe that all
bills and motions introduced in this place meet that standard.
If we are to earn respect for the work we do on our private
members' bills and motions, there must be a mechanism which
demands excellence in the work done. It would be reflected in
the quality of the bills and motions brought forward if the
standard were set high enough to warrant private members'
business having the same status as government bills.
1735
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Yellowhead. It is a great pleasure to rise today to address the
motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville. I
wish to unequivocally state my 100% support for the motion.
For the benefit of the vast audience out there in TV land
watching the debate, I will begin by explaining what private
members' business is and why it is so vital to our democratic
process that the mechanism be strengthened from its current form.
In our parliamentary system the vast majority of time, resources
and attention is devoted to government legislation. Bills
introduced by ministers of the crown further the political
agenda of the government of the day. However we as members of
parliament are elected by our constituents to represent them
here, rather than to represent this place to them, and to raise
their issues of concern. As most of parliament's time is devoted
to government legislation, our opportunity to act in a
legislative capacity on behalf of the people we represent falls
to the one hour of debate each day that is allotted to private
members' business.
To give our audience an appreciation of the frustration that MPs
feel over private members' business and the process through which
it is chosen, I will briefly review it.
Hundreds of bills and motions are introduced in the House of
Commons. Each one represents hours upon hours or in some cases
days and weeks of research and work, but most never see the light
of day. In order for a bill to actually be debated in the House,
an MP's name must first be drawn from a lottery. The competition
is fierce. There are 301 MPs with just one hour a day, one item
per day, and approximately 135 sitting days per year. The math
should be evident to everyone, particularly to my hon. colleague
from Elk Island.
When and if a member's name is finally drawn, he or she can put
forward a bill for debate and then the real challenge begins.
Having beaten the odds and come this far, the bill in question is
still not even eligible for a vote in the House of Commons. This
means that we end up using the precious little time we have
available to debate motions and bills which simply disappear upon
the expiry of their one hour debate. Such non-votable bills and
motions have absolutely no chance whatsoever of becoming law. It
is debate for debate's sake and in my opinion it is a waste of
valuable time.
If we as members of parliament want our issues to come to a
vote, we must appear as witnesses before a special subcommittee
to plead our case and argue why our bill or motion should be
granted one of ten designations of votable status. The rules of
the House explicitly ensure that most private members' business,
if debated, does not get to a vote.
To make matters worse for opposition members, many of whom
naively look to private members' business as their sole source of
parliamentary effectiveness, the government maintains a majority
of members on the subcommittee that decides which precious few
bills become votable and which ones get to be a waste of valuable
time. The government can use this majority to ensure that issues
which run too contrary to the government's own vision have no
chance of being subject to a vote in the House of Commons and
therefore becoming law.
The very lucky items which, against all odds, are drafted,
tabled, drawn, argued and finally awarded votable status go
through a slightly different process. They get three hours of
debate, one hour at a time, separated by about 30 sitting days,
which means that in reality it takes about half the year just to
get through the first stage of debate and come to an initial
vote.
In the very exceptional circumstances when the government cannot
force its own MPs to vote to kill a private member's bill, it has
other levers to kill private members' bills more quietly.
First, if a bill passes second reading and is referred to a
committee for further review, the government uses its numerical
dominance of the committee to simply see to it that the item on
the agenda mysteriously never comes up for consideration before
the House has prorogued. The bill is thus buried in committee
and never seen again.
Second, another famous tactic, one which the government employed
against one of its own members in the last parliament, is strong
arming its committee members to debate every clause of the bill
and report the bill back to the House as a blank piece of paper.
This actually happened, as the member for Mississauga East can
attest. It is one of the greatest affronts to representative
democracy that we have seen.
Third, failing even such draconian measures, if a private
member's bill hypothetically manages to pass all stages of debate
in the House of Commons, it must be brought forth for debate in
the Senate. The Senate is faced with the same issue of whether
or not it is to be given votable status in the other place. Our
colleague from Scarborough Southwest has fallen victim to this
sort of game in the previous parliament.
Finally, these measures are not even necessary. The whole
private members' process is so drawn out that most bills and
motions end up dying somewhere on the order paper when an
election is called. I hope this summary serves to illustrate the
absolute futility of the current private members' process. A
mechanism which should be the greatest tool of parliamentarians
becomes a joke.
1740
The process is designed to be merely a show and to maintain
absolute government control over what happens in the federal
legislative sphere. Individual representatives of the citizens
of Canada do not have the means to overcome government
partisanship and to effect real legislative measures that matter
to their constituents.
Private members' business has evolved dramatically since
Confederation. We have tried models ranging from entire private
members' days to the current system of one hour per day every day
of the week.
Our current structure originates with the McGrath report of 1985
which established the votability rules and the lottery system
that created the order of precedence for debate. The McGrath
report summarized the state of private members' business when it
stated:
The House does not attach any great importance to private
members' business as it is now organized. Our proposals are
designed to achieve a number of improvements in the way private
members' business is dealt with. They would tighten the
conditions of the ballot, widen the scope of private members'
legislation, and ensure that some private members' bills and
motions come to a vote.
It is evident that the democratic bar was already so low that a
major objective of the single and greatest private members'
business reform had to be to ensure that some private members'
bills and motions came to a vote. The low bar has meant that the
reformed system, with some minor subsequent reforms, has led to the
mediocrity with which we operate today.
The single greatest impediment to the effectiveness of private
members' business is votability. While other matters of
procedure also require attention, I would argue that by the very
act of making all private members' legislation votable we would
be forcing the House to take private members' business seriously.
Members would attend the debates and consult their constituents
over the issues put forth.
Among the defenders of the status quo the same arguments tend to
resurface. I will recount just a few. First, non-votable bills
are useful because they raise awareness of issues. This argument
is uneconomical. Why not raise awareness of important issues and
give the House the power to pronounce upon them without having to
repeat the process at a later time? Private members' business is
scarce enough as it is.
Second, if all bills were votable, fewer bills would be
considered because of the differential in debate time between
votable and non-votable items. This argument is also an
obfuscation. I believe that all members of this place would
gladly see a reduction in the debatable time to a standard one
hour if it meant their bills would have a hope of actually coming
to a vote. This solution would increase the number of bills
considered in the current structure.
Third, a democratically elected majority government should have
control of the legislative agenda and not cede it to opposition
members. Such an argument is an insult to opposition members and
government backbenchers alike. The regional cleavages in Canada
dictate that if private members' business is shut down then
certain regions are effectively shut out of the legislative
process.
Furthermore I would argue that if a government is scared of
ideas and of free votes in the Commons it is no longer deserving
of the right to govern. How much more legitimate can a
government be than if it allows absolute freedom to debate and
freedom to vote while still maintaining the confidence of members
of the House?
Does general votability work? I want to point to a few
examples. The Quebec standing orders state that apart from being
referred to a committee before second reading “the general rules
pertaining to bills shall apply to private bills”. The Alberta
standing orders state that “the standing orders relating to
public bills apply to private bills”. The Ontario rules state
that the speaker is to put the question at 12 noon each Thursday
for all private members' bills considered that week. They all
get a vote.
I urge all members of the House to look upon today's debate as a
golden opportunity to restore an important pillar of democracy to
our assembly. In an age where power is increasingly concentrated
in the Prime Minister's Office, and where party whips dangle
carrots of travel or promotion in exchange for obedience, we must
stand guard against allowing our House of Commons to become a
technical afterthought to elite decision making.
We as individual members have the power today to support the
motion and take back a part of the democratic power that has been
bestowed upon us by our constituents and is a vital institution
of the Westminster parliamentary system of which we are proud to
be a part.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I hesitated for a moment to ask questions or make
comments because I wanted to give others an opportunity to
participate in the debate.
I enjoyed the speech from our rookie member and congratulate him
on having such insight into private members' business.
Does he have any comment with respect to what people in his
riding are saying are the issues and what they would like him to
bring forward? Does he think that if the motion passes today, as
we anticipate it will, it will enhance his ability to represent
his constituents?
1745
Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, of course the answer is yes.
I came here with fewer illusions than some members because I had
worked as an adviser on the Hill before being elected. I
realized that private members had limited influence on the major
agenda of the day. It struck me that it therefore made sense to
try to be as good a constituency representative as possible.
There are any number of local issues that might not come to the
attention of ministers and the ministry. It is only natural that
issues which are important locally would not emerge at the
national level.
I will cite a couple of issues of interest. I will bring before
the House, among other things, the issue of one of the highways
that goes through my riding, Highway 7. It has come to be known
as the killer strip due to the large number of fatal accidents
that occur on it. It is a two lane highway with a very high
traffic volume.
The issue of level crossings is an area of federal jurisdiction
because rails are within federal jurisdiction. Every town in the
Ottawa valley has level crossings. The funding formula for
providing warning signs is arcane and hard to work with. In my
home town of Carleton Place the street I live on has low traffic
volume and uses wig-wags. The major street in town uses only
lights to warn of a coming train. This sort of thing has
recently led to a fatality in the Ottawa valley.
There are other issues of importance on a different level.
Religious freedom in China is of great importance to me and to
some of my constituents who are practitioners of Falun Gong. Some
of them have friends or relatives in China who have been arrested
for practising their faith. These are some of the issues it
would be nice to put before the House and see come to a vote.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak to the motion. It
alarms and amazes me. I have only been here six months. When I
talk to my constituents back home and explain to them that we can
come into this place, discuss private members' business or any
business and not be able to vote on it freely or even at all, it
is absolutely unbelievable in their minds. It is very difficult
to explain it to them. What I have seen and witnessed in this
place since I have been here has increasingly impressed upon me
how dysfunctional it can become.
We need to think a bit outside the box. We think we are taking
a large step today by saying private members' bills should be
votable, but how radical is that? We should go a little further
and say private members' bills should not only be votable but
freely votable. If something very specific and of importance
comes before the House that we can debate and vote on, we should
be able to vote on it in the best interest of Canadians. That is
who we are truly representing.
That would be the first step toward parliamentary reform, and
parliamentary reform is something this place cries out for.
Canadians cry out for it as well.
I am pleased to represent a party that believes in democracy,
free votes and the ability to debate openly. Sometimes that
causes trouble and is a bit messy, but that is fine. We admit we
do not have all the answers. However Canadians need to be able
to vote freely for the government and be represented freely. This
opportunity is very important.
The supply day motion is a very important step in the process.
Canadians will learn to recognize and understand that. I sense
that there is support. As a new member I am alarmed that we did
not get here sooner. It amazes me.
Another thing we do in this place, as I discern from what is
happening in the seats around me, is forget whose chairs we are
sitting in when we come into this place to speak, debate, talk or
put forward motions such as private members' bills.
1750
Members forget that while a seat may have their name on it, it
should not. I think this one does. Yes, my name is right here,
but this is not my seat. It is not the seat of the Canadian
Alliance people who voted for me. It is not the seat of people
from whatever side, Canadian Alliance members or anyone else, who
voted for me. It is definitely not the seat of the Prime
Minister, and we see how much power is in that seat. It is the
seat of the 100,000 residents of my constituency. That is whose
seat this is and that is who sits here. It is not I. We forget
that so easily in this place.
As I discern what happens around this place, I would suggest we
change those signs because so easily we forget exactly what we
are doing here and who we are representing. As a newcomer here
that is my first take as to what is going on.
It is wonderful that we have the opportunity to put forward
private members' bills because the government does not have a
monopoly on insight, good ideas or brainpower. Private members
have an obligation to represent the people who send them here.
Putting forward legislation on behalf of those people is an
absolute right of representative democracy.
The motion would in some ways clearly rectify the oversight of
the current system. Why it has not been here up to this point is
something I must ask myself. Is it that the government is
fearful that members from the other side of the House might
upstage it with quality legislation? Is it that the
government does not trust the public to bring forth worthwhile
legislation? Perhaps it is that the government is fearful
that when good legislation comes forward it will not have time to
steal the ideas for itself and introduce them on its own time.
This is, as we have heard from a previous speaker, exactly what
has happened.
Voting on private members' business is a minor change on the
road to parliamentary reform because so much needs to be reformed
in this place. I think Canadians are crying out for reform in
many ways. We sense that when we see the number of people who
failed to exercise their right to vote in the last election.
The fact that we can put forward bills is a bit of a fail-safe
to the government's claim to ultimate power. However the
government should not be alarmed at that. It can vote down
private member's bills any time it wants. Private members' bills
are not a threat to a government in power but they give Canadians
an opportunity to speak in an effective and fruitful way.
I hope this is just one step toward many reforms that will take
place in the country. We should recognize that one of the things
we should be doing here is realizing whose seat we are in. We
should be able to vote freely not only on private members'
business but on all business in the House. I am dreaming, and I
think Canadians are dreaming, of the day that will take place.
Perhaps it will come sooner than some of us might imagine.
Private members' business over the years has been an important
mechanism in the federation. It is not something new. The fight
over private members' business has been happening for 130 years.
As a government comes to power, backbenchers seem to duel about
whether private members' business can come forward. The
government at times pushes back private members' business only to
have the pendulum swing again in the other direction.
This is one of those times when we have an opportunity to push
back the agenda because the pendulum has swung too far in the
opposite direction. What a golden opportunity it is for the
House to represent Canadians in a more effective way. The time
has come to push back. I believe there is an appetite for it in
the House. I am certainly pleased at what I hear colleagues in
all parties in the House saying about the bill. I look forward
to what that will mean to this place.
It is one small step in a journey we all need to take together.
1755
MPs are frustrated with merely rubber stamping government legislation
by the majority. Opposition MPs lack an outlet for their ideas.
The motion would go a long way to facilitating that.
I support the motion. I congratulate my colleague for
introducing it and congratulate every member who will vote for it
in the House. It is one step in a journey that is long overdue.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in
the House and say how insightful it is to hear from what we like
to classify in the House as a rookie.
It is my third term and sometimes we lose sight of why we are
here. When the member mentioned that his seat belonged to his
constituents, all 100,000 of them and not just those who voted
for his party, it brings back the reason all of us from all
parties of the House came here.
Why is it necessary to make private members' business votable?
It is in many cases the only opportunity backbenchers ever get to
put forward their ideas. We know that. The member asked why it
has not been done before. He asked what happened and why it had
taken so long. He mentioned that the government might be fearful
it would be unable to take some of the ideas.
Unfortunately, I think he was right. That is one of the
reasons. I can honestly say that I hope the government takes all
the ideas. I do not think there is any such thing as stealing,
borrowing or anything else in this Chamber. I know we joke about
sending brown envelopes over. I would gladly send the government
brown envelopes every night if it would adopt the ideas.
My big fear is that private members' bills would not truly be
independently voted on but would be guided by partisan interests.
Could the member say whether that is a fear of his too?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, the member's question
begs another question: Why is all business in the House not
voted on by the people we truly represent, the 100,000 people in
our constituencies?
That is a question Canadians are having a difficult time getting
their minds around. If something is put forward in the House and
it is a good idea, it must garner the support of 50% plus one of
301 members. If it is good for Canada it is good for Canada. If
not, it will not achieve the consensus of the House.
We hurt ourselves badly by the process in place now. Surely we
can start on private members' business, which is very funnelled
and focused on specific ideas, and open it up to an open vote in
this place. If it is good for Canadians it is good for
Canadians. It is not about party politics. It is about leading
the country. Our job here, as I discern it, is to be leaders in
the country. I would challenge hon. members to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to split my time with the member for
Scarborough—Rouge River.
I am glad to see today's motion and delighted at the enthusiasm
shown by Canadian Alliance members at the possibility of
improving the rules and procedures of the House of Commons.
I listened to several speeches and I really appreciate the
comments by members of the other political parties.
With respect to private members' business, I am one of the lucky
ones. My name gets drawn rather often because it is true that I
present a lot of motions, but that is not the issue, since our
name stands only once for the draw.
One day, just to explain how it works, I had spoken for an hour
here in the House on a motion to pay a salary to women who stay
at home.
1800
When my hour was up around noon, I immediately went to
the clerk's office and I again presented my motion. It was a
Tuesday and, the next day, during the afternoon, the motion I had
brought forward had a new number. There was a draw and again I
won; I chose this same motion. Recently I have been lucky and
my name has been drawn twice.
I support the motion because solutions must be found. It is
true that some members have presented motions for four years and
their motions have never been drawn. A solution must be found.
What I have trouble with is the way the decision is made about whether a
motion or bill is votable or not.
We must go before a committee made up of members from all
political parties. At the very end, we have five minutes to
explain what our bill is all about.
Then a decision is made, but it all depends on how the
discussions went: outside the House we are all friends, but
inside it is like a hockey game, and it is not easy. In
committee, if just one member is opposed to the bill, it cannot
be a votable item.
I experienced that recently. I presented a bill concerning the
posting of the gross price of a litre of gas before taxes. When I
look at the criteria set in April 1999, this bill, which
reflected the public's wish—because we always serve our
constituents and all Canadians—was perfectly in keeping with
what the public was asking for with respect to the price of gas.
What I find troublesome is the fact that decisions are made by
friends or colleagues, members who are against us within the
House. We should testify before an independent committee made up
of three people who have experience in the House of Commons and
to whom we would explain for five minutes what our bill is all
about.
Once a decision is made, the reasons why it is or is not a votable
item should be put into writing, specifying under which criteria.
We never get a written decision, as it is all done verbally, as to
why our item is votable or not, and we are never told why. All of
a sudden, we are out of luck.
This is rather troublesome, because all the members of this
House work very hard. They put a great deal of effort into
finding solutions to everything that affects Canada. This is why
I am saying that we must find solutions.
I am pleased by the motion put forward today by the Canadian
Alliance member, because it calls on the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs to use its great expertise in this
area, precisely to find solutions.
Even you, Mr. Speaker, have examined reports and tried to find
solutions Today, we are back at it again.
I will vote in favour of this motion this evening and I truly
appreciated the comments made today.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon.
member with regard to his comments. I too have been lucky on the
order of the draw, but I also know the frustrations of
having just five minutes to go before a committee to justify why my
bill should be deemed votable.
I have had the opportunity to work on both sides. I sat on the
committee on private members' business. I know full well the
frustration of seeing people come to the committee who have spent
months putting their private members' bills together. Then we
drew five or six bills which should have been made votable, but
we only had a time slot for one. Therefore we had to say that
five would be non-votable.
I strongly feel the motion we will be voting on today will
answer all of these problems. Does the member concur that these
problems can be addressed through the simple measure we put
forward today?
1805
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr.
Speaker, it is true that we will not resolve all the problems
here by November. There will always be something somewhere that
needs improving, but this evening, with the motion brought
forward earlier today, we will improve things. That is what
counts.
We must find a solution together to improve things so we can say
to the other members “Go on, introduce bills, bring forward
motions, you will have a chance”. Today, many members are no
longer bringing forward motions or introducing bills. I was not
bitter following the committee's decision because the members
of the committee do good work.
In conclusion, the second time I appeared before the committee I
was in good humour and said “I do not want my motion to be
votable. I wish you a good day and will let you continue your
work”. I was not in a bad mood. However, it is true there are
always things to improve. The member is right. There will always
be something to improve. Perhaps this will happen even next
December. I appreciated the member's question.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate
today. Some weeks ago it would have seemed strange that we would
have an opportunity to spend time debating an issue like this in
the House. I congratulate the official opposition for putting it
on the table so we may exchange views on making some improvements
in the way we do our business here.
It is worth noting that the opposition day motion, which is the
format we are following today, is one of approximately six
opposition motions which have been adopted since we came back to
the House from the last election. It seems a rather high number
to me but it is a tribute to both the quality of the motions and
perhaps the reduction in partisanship applied in considering
them.
I do not know what colleagues will do with this particular
motion, but it certainly is an attempt to improve the role of
private members' business in parliament.
I have had the opportunity and privilege of chairing the
procedure and House affairs committee, which in a bit of an arm's
length way looks after some of the private members' business
procedure, and the infamous private members' business
subcommittee which up until now selected private members'
business for votability. The particular task of chairing or even
serving on that committee is a mission of real dedication. It is
not an easy task because inevitably a few members are pleased
with the results and a larger number are displeased.
We try to circulate our colleagues on both sides of the House
through the subcommittee as quickly as possible so they are not
too bruised and battered. It is an exercise in politics and in
trying to make the procedures work. The motion today suggests
that there may be another way to do it.
After listening to some of the opposition speeches today, I
suggest we should be careful. We really should be careful about
stereotyping members on both sides of the House. Not every
person on this side of the House thinks the same way, acts the
same way or deals with policy issues the same way. The same is
true among the membership on the other side of the House.
When a member opposite looks at the government's side and sees
all the government members voting together, as so often is the
case on a government bill, I understand why they would tend to
stereotype us as being one huge group of MPs that simply gets up
and votes en masse for a bill. However in many cases it is never
100% clear before we all come into the House how our members will
vote. There is always a lot of political pushing and shoving
in our caucuses before we come in to vote, as we all try to
convince each other to vote in particular ways. This is not
strange to politics. It is very much part of the job we have
here.
1810
The motion today properly reflects the important historic role
of private members' business. The member for Yorkton—Melville
who moved the motion has pointed out that private members'
business was actually the main stock of business of earlier
parliaments. We do not have to go back too far. It was a few
generations ago. It was out of private members' business that
all bills tended to evolve.
Over time the government agenda dominated and the private
members' business portion was squeezed into smaller procedural
portions of the day, the week or month, as the case may be. I
suppose that is the bad news for a private member. However, the
good news is that as an element of parliamentary business,
private members' business has never been lost. It is still alive
and there.
When I first came to this House in 1988, it was my perception
that private members' business, as a living entity, was virtually
on life support. I recall a private member's bill, involving
tobacco use, quite extraordinarily being passed. There might
have been another one passed one a year later.
However, the House and the government since those days have
actually accorded a wider berth to private members' business. I
am sure someone is keeping track of the fact that there are now
quite a few private members' bills and motions that have been
adopted by the House, as have opposition day motions, as I
pointed out. There seems to be a modest freeing up of
partisanship, time and procedure for private members' business
and the whole envelope of non-government business.
This has been very healthy. I see members in the House who have
had private members' business adopted. I was fortunate in that
regard at one point in time. I was very proud of the item that
was adopted by the House, and the thumbprint of that work exists
to this day.
The member for Elk Island indicated that he had counted some
4,000 pieces of private members' business since 1993. That is
huge. That bundle of work by members of parliament on both sides
of the House is actually a breeding ground for creative, fresh
public policy. Yes, the government does cherry-pick from that
pool of creative work. However, of those ideas put forward by
members to the House as part of the public record, not all but a
lot become part of public policy debate or actual public policy
that is adopted in one way or another. That is positive.
Also government votes on private members' business these days
are not whipped. It is a free vote that has created some
interesting voting patterns, but it has been healthy. The Prime
Minister made that commitment and has kept to it. It is a very
interesting evolution.
The proposal is that all private members' business items become
votable. As I mentioned, with 4,000 pieces of private members'
business since 1993, there would be a need to ration the volume
in terms of House time. We could not have fit in 4,000 items
over the last seven or eight years. It is just too much. For
that purpose we have been using a lottery. It is not very
pretty, it is not very rational, but members seem to accept it.
Perhaps that is not the proper tool. Maybe we should
change that.
We also have found it necessary to ration for quality or
relevance. That is why the subcommittee reviews
the bill.
1815
The suggestion is that we do not need to scrutinize for quality
or relevance as we can let the House do that. There are a number
of private members' business items that members do not believe
will go too far. Is it appropriate to accord House time to a
private member's business item that a member happens to like but
knows will not go anywhere?
With regard to the rationing mechanism that we are searching
for, I would point out that the 22nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is before the House and
gets rid of the 100 signature rule. We are looking for a
replacement. The opposition day motion, if adopted by
the House, would undoubtedly trigger an exercise that would
produce a mechanism to treat private members' business
appropriately.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on the
particular item today. I will be splitting my time with my
Canadian Alliance colleague from Wild Rose who will be wrapping
it up at the end of the hour. I would like to read the text of
the motion into the record again. It states:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be
instructed to draft, and report to this House no later than
November 1, 2001, changes to the Standing Orders improving
procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business,
including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be
votable.
For our viewing audience and those looking in, the important
part of the motion is to come up with a workable proposal
allowing for all private members' business items, meaning the
motions and the bills introduced by individual MPs, to be
votable.
I commend my Canadian Alliance colleague, the member for
Yorkton—Melville, for bringing forward the motion. We should
not be surprised as he has brought forward many other fine things
on agriculture, opposition to the gun bill and so on. I commend
him on the common sense proposal he brought forward that
hopefully will have the support of members on all sides of the
House when the vote is taken. I also commend the members for
Scarborough—Rouge River and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik on
their comments. They made some thoughtful and supportive remarks
as well.
Private members' business for those of us in this place is
indisputably valuable because it ought not to be on party lines.
MPs have a greater latitude to vote freely, which is not
generally the case with government business. There is that sense
that if we do not vote a government bill forward then it is a
lack of confidence. I believe that is a myth, a problem, and
hopefully we will bring that down some day. As it stands,
private members' business is not a perceived threat to the
government. It is not perceived as a vote of non-confidence in
the government of the day.
The motion we have before us in terms of all private members'
business being votable would improve private members' business.
Without a doubt it would give a backbencher a more meaningful
role. Backbenchers from the government side and from opposition
parties could put forward sane and sensible proposals called for
by constituents throughout the country.
These proposals would have a good chance of being adopted on a
non-partisan basis. It would be good for members of parliament
and backbenchers in the sense that they would be forced to listen
to debates carefully since they would be voting freely and not
necessarily with their parties. They would have to form an
opinion of their own rather than some ministerial department or
critic crafting a particular recommendation. It is good from that
point of view as members would have to assess, engage and think
through the merits and implications of a particular item.
It would also encourage Canadians to vote for a local candidate
because of his or her views and not just for a national party.
That would be good for democracy in that it would engage more
people because the individual who is going forward, be it a
nomination within a party and subsequently at election time,
would likely be putting the ideas he is a strong proponent of
into the form of a private member's bill.
1820
It would in some sense revolutionize the process. That is probably
not too strong a word in the sense that it would engage more
constituents and more of the public across our country in
democracy. Many have grown cynical and apathetic and I think
this would be a way of turning that around.
It also respects the democratic rights of constituents because
private members' business is currently the only real way that an
MP's constituents can have direct input between elections into
actual legislation. Some might say if individuals are close to a
minister they could have input in that way, but I think it would
be fair to say that over the course of the last number of years
it is the Prime Minister's Office that controls it. It is even
questionable how much influence various ministers around the
cabinet table exert.
In a very deep way private members' business would give the
opportunity of direct input from constituents via their members
of parliament. We must improve it if we can. Making private
members' items votable is an obvious improvement because
democracy demands that we actually vote on something. It makes
sense that if there is something coming forward we should be able
to vote on it.
For example, the prime minister of the day could call for an
election campaign to run a certain length of time. Individuals
throughout the country could simply present their ideas. If, when
everyone reached an end point, which would be election day, there
were no vote, there would be nothing. In this respect it only
makes logical sense that if there are items put forward, debated
and so on, they should be voted on.
The follow-up is that the current system is undemocratic. How
could there be democracy without any voting? The problem of
items not being made votable has worsened in the past while. In
the second session of the 36th parliament 30% of drawn items were
made votable, but in this session it is only 20%.
I will not belabour the lack of democracy because it has been
mentioned by others. Some even see the subcommittee's decision
making as being rather arbitrary. Some go further to say it is
an unfair selection process. With regard to the stated selection
criteria, there is a grid that we are supposed to fall into line
with to make items votable.
It seems that most members following that criteria can make an
item such that it would be votable. Yet it comes down to a
judgment call by a small subcommittee that operates on a
consensus basis. It is incomprehensible. It is ineffable to
some of us why some are not made votable. We need something
changed in that respect.
My own experience was that I had 100 signatures of members of
parliament voting for something that I brought forward. It was a
freedom of conscience bill, Bill C-246. I assumed that it would
be a matter of a vote at the end of the day. That was the whole
point of gathering the signatures. Something went sideways on it
and the process was suspended. I did not have the vote as I
assumed I would after having collected so much support across the
House of Commons. It was only the waste of time and energy that
went into it.
People talk about drawbacks but there are ways that we can
respond. Some say that there would not be enough time for House
business if every item were votable. The time for debate can be
reduced on each item. The number of items drawn can be reduced.
The time allotted to private members' business can be increased.
There are all kinds of ways in which we can respond to that.
If silly items are sometimes introduced, the individual
probably pays the price politically. However that has been very
rare. The House would obviously vote against those frivolous
things. I think any of these things can be addressed. In my
view there is no concern that cannot be responded to in terms of
making all items votable.
I strongly support the motion the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville put before us today. I encourage my colleagues
on all sides of the House to give it due consideration and have
it put forward for the fall session.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have the full amount time so I will try to be
as fast as I can. There are a couple of things I would like to
point out. I am certainly behind the motion and I congratulate
my colleague for bringing it forward.
I will talk about some private members' business that has been
successfully voted on in this parliament. There was a bill
from the member for Winnipeg North Centre regarding labels on
alcoholic drinks and a warning of the dangers of drinking while
pregnant. I believe it was voted on and passed.
In the first session of the last parliament the member for
Winnipeg Centre had a private member's bill on the retrofitting
of government buildings for energy efficiency, which passed.
1825
In the second session of the last parliament the member for
Acadie—Bathurst had a private member's motion pass regarding the
study on benefits for seasonal workers.
A long time ago when John Nunziata was sitting on that side of
the House he brought forward a private member's bill to eliminate
section 745 of the criminal code and it was passed by the House.
The member for Mississauga East brought forward a private member's bill
forward proposing consecutive sentencing for certain sexual
crimes and it was passed.
The member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley brought forward a
very good private member's bill on drunk driving causing death
and mandatory sentencing of seven years and it passed.
To my recollection, there have been many more private members'
bills that have been voted on in the House of Commons. However,
the problem I see is that I do not believe any one of them have
ever been implemented.
I know that section 745, which was introduced in 1994, is still
in the criminal code. It is still the faint hope clause.
Nothing was done after the House accepted it. Members wanted it
to pass and to become law but it never did. I was on the justice
committee at the time. I saw John Nunziata's private member's
bill come to the table of the justice committee and die because
it was never brought forward for debate or discussion at the
committee level. Even though I was a member of the committee and
I asked hundreds of times to get the issue up for discussion and
debate so that we could call witnesses and get it into law, it
was ignored.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but he should know that
there were changes to section 745 in the bill and those are on
the record. Compromises were made.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Mr.
Nunziata's bill was to eliminate section 745 and it was never
eliminated.
There is also consecutive sentencing. The courts have the
capability of doing that but the sentencing bill that was passed
in the House made it mandatory for the courts to give consecutive
sentencing. Lo and behold, one day I saw consecutive sentencing.
It really made me feel good that the courts of the land finally
brought it in. It was in the case of a farmer who had two counts
against him for selling his wheat across the border. He was
sentenced consecutively for each count. I was in the courtroom
and saw that. What a disgraceful thing to happen.
All of these good bills, which the highest court of the land
agree to and that should come to pass, never come to pass. What
kind of an outfit do we have running the show here?
The government gets direction from all members on all sides of
the House to bring in some legislation to implement the very
things that we all agree should happen. Why does it not happen?
What kind of government do we have that would ignore a decision
made in the highest court of the land? We already know it ignores
the people across the land but for it to ignore very important
decisions of the House of Commons blows my mind.
I am sure that at the end of this day government members will
vote for the motion. I am pleased about that. It is a great
idea, but I wonder how old I will be before it is ever
implemented. That scares the daylights out of me. This outfit
is very ineffective and is not functional. If it does not start
listening to the people across the land and to its own members,
who the devil will it listen to?
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
1830
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
VOTE 1—NATIONAL DEFENCE—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the
point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Albert
concerning vote 1 under National Defence of the operating
expenditures in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002.
In his argument the hon. member states that the estimate should
be ruled out of order because in his view and that of the auditor
general the expenditures related to the development of the
Downsview Park site, approximately $2 million of the $4.8
million, are not a valid charge against National Defence vote 1
and that the Department of National Defence should not be funding
Downsview Park from its operation expenditures. If the
government wants to develop and operate Downsview Park, it should
introduce legislation accordingly, then seek the appropriate
funding through the estimates rather than through National
Defence.
[Translation]
Before beginning, I would like to thank the hon. member for
raising the matter and I also want to acknowledge the
contributions of the hon. Minister of Transport, the hon. House
leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon. Leader of
the Government in the House, the hon. opposition House leader and
the hon. member for Athabasca on this point.
[English]
In his point the hon. member for St. Albert stated that in the
1994 budget the government announced the closure of Canadian
Forces Base Toronto at Downsview and indicated that it was to be
held in perpetuity as a unique urban recreational green space.
For the project to go ahead, the government issued an order in
council authorizing Canada Lands Company Limited to incorporate a
new crown corporation, Parc Downsview Park Inc., as a subsidiary
of Canada Lands Company Limited pursuant to the Financial
Administration Act.
The hon. member also stated that management of the Downsview
lands has been transferred from National Defence to the Canada
Lands Company and that National Defence still continues to hold
the title to the lands.
In addition, initial funding to the Parc Downsview Park Inc. was
provided for from an existing National Defence vote. The
government issued an order in council authorizing the transfer of
the first parcel of land to Parc Downsview Park Inc. pursuant to
the Federal Real Property Act.
[Translation]
The parties to this complaint, that is, the hon. member for St.
Albert, the Minister of Transport (formerly the Minister of
National Defence), and the auditor general, are in agreement on
several key elements.
First, as all three have noted, the Department of National
Defence continues to hold title to the lands in question.
Second, in its 1994 budget, approved by the House, the
government announced its intention to close certain Canadian
forces bases, and referred to the National Defence budget impact
paper tabled with the budget, which spoke of the intention to
hold the Downsview site “in perpetuity and in trust primarily as
a unique urban recreational green space for the enjoyment of
future generations”.
Third, as the auditor general has noted “each step in the
founding and development of Downsview Park was completed in
accordance with the relevant governing legislation”.
Finally, the House has previously, in 1999-2000, given its
approval for the allocation of funds to operations and
development of Downsview park.
[English]
These facts are not in dispute. The minister has informed the
House that in addition to retaining title to the lands, the
Department of National Defence maintains ongoing activities on
the Downsview property.
1835
The auditor general in his report takes the position in
paragraph 17.73 that:
The government takes the position that it has the necessary
approval, having received parliamentary approval first on its
budgetary policy of 1994 and second on its allocation of funds in
1999-2000. I note the observation in the auditor general's
report:
The mandate and purposes of Parc Downsview Park Inc. are fully
consistent with those of the parent corporation, the Canada Lands
Company Limited, and the other current and past subsidiary
corporations of the parent, for example, the CN Tower and the Old
Port of Montreal.
That is, there is no departure here from previous government
practice.
There is a disagreement between the government and the auditor
general with respect to the extent of the existing authority of
the Department of National Defence to allocate funds to Downsview
Park. However, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the
hon. Minister of Transport, it seems that the House has up to
this point sided with the government.
For example, when the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs met on March 13 of this year to consider the
main estimates, my understanding is that no questions were raised
pertaining to Downsview Park and the committee elected not to
present a report in the House. In this regard, therefore, the
Speaker can find nothing out of order.
It also seems evident that the government and the auditor
general are not in agreement concerning certain of the
government's accounting practices. If this is indeed the case
and if it is something hon. members wish to investigate further,
that would be for the House or its committees to pursue. It is
not a matter for the Speaker to decide.
To conclude, I see no clear evidence that any procedural
irregularity has occurred, and accordingly I rule that there is
no point of order here. I thank the hon. member for St. Albert
as well as those who contributed to the discussion.
BILL S-15—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point
of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House
on May 30, 2001, concerning the procedural acceptability of Bill
S-15, an act to enable and assist the Canadian tobacco industry
in attaining its objective of preventing the use of tobacco
products by young people in Canada.
[Translation]
I wish to thank the hon. government House leader, the hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre,
the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the hon. member for Calgary West, as
well as the hon. opposition House leader and the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for their interventions.
I would also like to thank hon. members for the additional
material they submitted for my consideration.
Let me first set the stage for this ruling. As your Speaker, it
is my duty to examine each case on which I must rule in light of
our practice and procedure and to make my decision, mindful that
each ruling adds to that body of precedent.
Marleau and Montpetit, in House of Commons Procedure and
Practice, at page 261, phrase this simply, stating:
It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian
of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an
institution.
[English]
Chapter 18 of Marleau and Montpetit provides a comprehensive
history of our financial procedures and I would commend to hon.
members reading pages 701 to 714, if they have not read the whole
book already, as being particularly helpful.
1840
Before I address the arguments presented for and against Bill
S-15 proceeding in the House, I want to provide the procedural
context against which I have to consider this point of order. I
ask hon. members to bear with me as I present the following
extracts from pages 701 to 703 of Marleau and Montpetit so as to
situate the issues raised by Bill S-15 in the larger context:
The manner in which Canada deals with public finance derives from
British parliamentary procedure, as practised at the time of
Confederation—
That is on page 701. It continues:
The whole law of finance, and consequently the whole British
constitution is grounded upon one fundamental principle, laid
down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and
secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown
and peaceful growth. All taxes and public burdens imposed upon
the nation for purposes of state, whatsoever their nature, must
be granted by the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers—
That is on pages 701 to 702. It continues:
Initially, the Commons were content simply to have grants of
Supply originate in their House. However, over time the Lords
began “tacking on” additional legislative provisions to Commons
“money bills”, by way of amendments. This was viewed by the
House as a breach of its prerogative to originate all legislation
which imposed a charge either on the public or the public purse,
and led the Commons in 1678, to resolve that:
All aids and supplies and aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are
the sole gift of the Commons; and all Bills for the granting of
any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons; and
that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct,
limit, and appoint, in such Bills, the ends, purposes,
considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of
such grants; which ought not to be changed or altered by the
House of Lords.
It is striking that over 300 years later a virtually identical
formulation is found in our own House of Commons Standing Order
80(1) which reads:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the parliament
of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all
bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the
House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit
and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes,
considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of
such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
[Translation]
This same principle is captured in an early source on Canadian
procedure, Bourinot 4th ed., at page 491, which states, and this
is a translation:
As a general rule, public bills may originate in either house;
but whenever they grant supplies of any kind, or involve
directly or indirectly the levying or appropriation of any tax
upon the people, they must be initiated in the popular branch,
in accordance with law and English constitutional practice.
In Canada, the constitution itself enshrines the ancient English
practice whereby the elected representatives of those who will
be affected by any tax measure should be the first to examine
such a measure and accept or reject it.
In matters of taxation, the House is provided with priority over
the Senate. The Constitution Act, 1867 provides, in section 53:
“Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for
imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of
Commons”. The standing orders provide that the House may only
consider taxation measures that have been initiated by a
minister through the usual ways and means procedures.
[English]
I have judged it necessary to offer this rather lengthy, but by
no means comprehensive, review of the history of our financial
procedures because I believe that the question of the primacy of
the House of Commons in taxation matters lies at the very heart
of our parliamentary practice and is, of course, central to a
ruling on this point of order.
1845
I fully appreciate the frustration exhibited by passionate
proponents of the aims of this bill who want to give the House an
opportunity to debate the merits of the bill. They may balk at
arguments about procedure, calling them obtuse or arcane, or
technicalities irrelevant to debate on public policy in the 21st
century.
Whatever sympathy I as a member or a citizen may have for those
views, as your Speaker I am bound to be the guardian of the
parliamentary rules and precedents that guide our deliberations
and it is against that standard that my ruling must be made.
[Translation]
Now let us return to consider the specifics of the matter at
hand.
The government House leader's complaint is twofold: first, that
Bill S-15 originated in the Senate rather than the House and so
violates the priority of the House in matter of taxation;
secondly, that Bill S-15 was not preceded by a ways and means
motion, an essential preliminary to the introduction of a tax
bill.
[English]
Those who spoke in defence of the bill claim that the bill does
not in fact seek to impose a tax but rather a levy desired by the
tobacco industry for a purpose which the industry considers as
beneficial to itself. If this argument is accepted then the
major impediment to the bill has been overcome, for as Erskine
May, 22nd edition at page 781, states:
Levies upon employers in a particular industry for the purpose of
forming a fund used to finance activities beneficial to the
industry are not normally regarded as charges—
That is, taxes. It is this issue, the distinction between a levy
and a tax, which will provide the key to the ruling.
[Translation]
I have re-examined with care previous cases where levies were
imposed. As the House knows, there have been very few bills
involving levies, and fewer still which gave rise to procedural
discussion.
I have studied the examples cited by the hon. member for
Lac-St-Louis, namely: the 1997 Act to amend the Copyright Act
imposing a levy on blank tapes in favour of performers and
recording artists; the 1987 Canada Shipping Act imposing a levy
against shipowners to deal with oil spills caused by tankers and
other ships; and the 1985 Canada Petroleum Resources Act
imposing a levy to support an environmental studies research
fund.
It is true that none of these bills gave rise to any challenge
regarding financial procedure, but it is also true that all
these bills originated in this House, a point I would ask hon.
members to keep in mind.
[English]
A brief review of the history of Bill S-15 may be helpful here
since it was mentioned by many hon. members rising to present the
case for the bill going forward.
The predecessor to this bill is Bill S-13, introduced in the
36th parliament where much the same objection was raised to that
bill. On December 2, 1998, Mr. Speaker Parent ruled that since
the bill proposed a tax, did not originate in the House of
Commons and was not preceded by a ways and means motion, it was
not properly before the House. He declared first reading
proceedings null and void and ordered the item withdrawn from the
order paper.
Basically the same issue, that is, the establishment through an
industry levy of a foundation to prevent the use of tobacco
products and actively promote non-smoking by Canadian youth, is
now before us, though in significantly modified form.
[Translation]
The original bill has been redrafted with a view to addressing
the procedural difficulties identified in Mr. Speaker Parent's
ruling and so make the new bill, Bill S-15, conform with House of
Commons practice and procedure. Supporters of Bill S-15, led by
its Commons sponsor, the hon. member for Lac-St-Louis, argue that
the modifications made to the text of the bill are sufficient to
ensure that it is now properly before the House and may proceed.
Let us now examine the arguments.
1850
It is not my intention to deal with all aspects of the
distinction between a tax and a levy, or the various ways in
which the two may be confused. For instance, while a levy may
not raise funds that find their way into the consolidated
revenue fund, that is not an issue in the present case, and we
will therefore set it aside.
As well, it is admitted that the bill provides benefits to
others besides those in the industry, but benefits of this kind
are not prohibited in a bill which imposes a levy, and that
question need not detain us here.
[English]
The central issue in the case before us is whether or not the
levy contained in Bill S-15 is imposed for purposes beneficial to
the tobacco industry.
In order to make this determination it is necessary to turn to
the bill itself. Indeed several members have enjoined the Chair
not to go beyond the text of the bill or to engage in speculation
concerning matters not dealt with directly in the clauses of the
bill. The Chair has accepted this advice in the spirit in which
it is given. I intend to confine myself solely and exclusively
to a consideration of the procedural issue which is before us.
The bill's supporters contend that the moneys raised to finance
the work of the foundation constitute a levy, not a tax, because
the creation of this foundation is beneficial to the tobacco
industry. Pointing to the preamble of the bill as well as to
part III, clause 34, which states the specific industry benefits
of the bill, they argue that these declaratory statements
constitute compelling evidence of a levy.
If such is the case then there would be no problem with the bill
originating in the other place. As Mr. Speaker Parent said in
his ruling on Bill S-13, and this applies equally to Bill S-15,
the central issue is whether or not the charge imposed is imposed
for a purpose beneficial to the tobacco industry.
In Bill S-13 no industry benefits were indicated in the text of
the bill as they now are in clause 34 of Bill S-15. However a
recitation of benefits in the text of the bill does not
necessarily resolve this issue, particularly where it is clear
from clause 3 that the bill also has a purpose that is beneficial
to the public which would support the view that the charge
imposed by the bill is a tax and not a levy. In that case
significant impediments would remain, for as Erskine May 22nd
edition explains at page 779:
Modern legislation, however, frequently makes provision for the
imposition of other types of fees or payment which, although not
taxes in a strict sense, have enough of the characteristics of
taxation to require to be treated as “charges upon the people”.
I think any reader of the terms of Bill S-15 would agree that it
serves two purposes. One is a public purpose, that is protecting
young persons against possible adverse health effects derived
from the use of tobacco products. The other is an industry
purpose, namely attracting the benefits indicated in the bill
derived from the industry supporting and being seen to support
its public purpose.
[Translation]
In ruling on this point of order, the Chair must determine which
of these two purposes is the primary purpose of the bill so that
it can decide whether the charge imposed by the bill can be seen
as a levy or must be considered as having “enough of the
characteristics of taxation” to be considered a tax.
The summary that accompanies Bill S-15 reads as follows:
This enactment incorporates the Canadian Tobacco Youth
Protection Foundation, a non-profit corporation established on
behalf of the tobacco industry, whose mandate is to prevent the
use of tobacco products by young persons in Canada.
A levy would be imposed on tobacco manufacturers in order to
provide the Foundation with the necessary funds to carry out its
objects and activities.
[English]
An examination of the provisions of the bill has satisfied me
that this summary is in general an accurate account of the
purpose of the bill. This aim is, in the words of the hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Louis, a public policy objective, a
conclusion further supported by material submitted by the hon.
House leader of the official opposition, that is, advertisements
by tobacco manufacturers in support of Bill S-15 which state:
1855
Based upon my reading of the text of Bill S-15, I am satisfied
that the bill seeks primarily to attain a public policy end and
only secondarily seeks to attain benefits to the industry. The
hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis has asked:
Is a foundation created by an industry under suspicion because it
carries out objectives that are completely different from those
of the industry itself?
My reply is that the foundation to be created is in no way
suspect, but the fact that legislation is required to establish
that body and to provide it with funds remains profoundly
troubling if I am to be persuaded that this bill is primarily an
initiative that is of benefit to the industry.
The question could be asked: What prevents the industry itself
from simply raising prices on its products so that it can fund
the work of such a foundation? Why is legislation required to
achieve that end?
[Translation]
While it is not my role to comment on such measures one way or
the other, I must recognize that there is very broad public
support for measures to reduce and even eliminate youth smoking.
This is, in my view, germane to the issue of distinguishing
between public purpose and industry purpose.
I accept on their face the statements in the preamble and in
clause 34 spelling out the benefits to the tobacco industry of
the enactment of this bill.
Neither am I judging what has been called “the substance of (the
bill) or the moral or ethical considerations of why the
foundation is being created”. Nevertheless, I remain unable to
regard Bill S-15 as anything other than a bill which seeks to
attain, as its principal aim, a reduction in youth smoking by
the imposition of a tax on the tobacco industry.
[English]
The declared benefits to the tobacco industry in Bill S-15 are
expressly set out in clause 34 but it still causes the Chair
considerable difficulty, for while it states the benefits which
the proposed act seeks for the tobacco industry, clause 34 does
not actually provide any of those benefits. It is purely
declaratory in nature. In fact I have not been able to identify
in the bill any dispositions that provide for the alleged
benefits to the industry other than those which provide support
exclusively to what is acknowledged as being a public policy
objective.
Let me give the House an example of what I mean. Among the
declared benefits listed in clause 34 is the claim in section (i)
that in the bill:
(i) a greater tolerance of the industry to the extent that its
products are used in a legal market, and
(ii) reasonable limits on regulation of the industry.
Even accepting at face value that these two items would be
beneficial to the tobacco industry, I can find no measures in the
bill to promote greater tolerance or to touch in any way the
current regulatory regime or limit the government in any manner
with respect to the regulation of the industry.
Simply stated, I can find no indication that the declared
benefits in clause 34, insofar as they are benefits to the
industry, are provided for in the operative clauses of Bill S-15.
The use of a levy must be one where the industry benefits sought
are, if not direct, at least clear to a reasonable person. I do
not speculate on whether or not these benefits would or would not
accrue to the industry subsequent to the adoption of this bill,
but in my view the bill itself does not provide for them.
[Translation]
What I have sought to do in this ruling is not to innovate or
set a new standard, but only to make explicit those factors
that, in my view, have always formed the basis of our practice
when distinguishing levies from taxes.
As your Speaker, I have to be concerned with where the bill
originates, for I am charged with defending the privileges of
this House, particularly in a case such as Bill S-15 involving
the constitutional primacy of this House vis-à-vis the other place
in respect of the imposition of taxes.
And, in my judgment, the strict standard for accepting as
legitimate a proposed levy has not been met.
1900
[English]
As your Speaker, I am not blind to the irony of my position. In
judging Bill S-15 to be imposing what amounts to a tax to fund an
initiative with a worthy public policy objective, I will, in
effect, be blocking that initiative. However to do otherwise, to
give Bill S-15 the benefit of the doubt and turn a blind eye to
the public purpose for which the levy on the industry is being
imposed, would be to shirk my duty as Speaker of this House. It
would be to leave open the possibility that the primacy of this
House in respect of taxation, as well as the financial initiative
of the crown in this House, would be compromised to where they
had meaning in form only.
Accordingly, I must conclude that the levy provided for in part
IV of Bill S-15 constitutes a tax. I am therefore obliged on
both procedural and constitutional grounds to order that the
first reading proceedings on Bill S-15 be declared null and void
and that the bill be withdrawn from the order paper.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I trust the Chair will indulge me in a point of
order I would like to lay before the House.
The point of order that I draw to your attention is a rather
extraordinary and draconian occurrence that has occurred in the
form of a motion that was moved by the government House leader
this morning using the provisions of Standing Order 56(1).
Being very well versed in the standing orders, Mr. Speaker, you
would know that this pertains to the use of an order which
permits the government to, in effect, move a motion that has not
received unanimous consent and therefore invoke what is commonly
known now as the 25 member standing rule.
I do not use inflammatory language lightly in this regard, but I
truly believe, and I urge the Chair to find, that there has been
an abuse of process that occurred which is tantamount to a breach
of the rules and the intention and interpretation thereof.
First, let me draw your attention to the final
paragraph of the motion that was moved by the government House
leader. It states:
That, during the consideration of the business of supply this
day, if a division is requested on any motion to concur in any
item or items in the Main Estimates, immediately after the taking
of the said division, the questions on all subsequent motions to
concur in any item or items in the Main Estimates shall be deemed
to have been carried on division.
The germane part of that is “shall be deemed to have been
carried on division”.
In French, these final words are “soient réputées adoptées
majoritairement”. This translates into “shall be adopted by
the majority”. This is the passage that is most offensive and
most odious and, I would suggest, shakes the democratic process
of the House.
The effect of this is to decide in the alternative all questions
related to the estimates, some $166 billion, no small sum of
taxpayer money. This is certainly not a routine matter that is
contemplated in Standing Order 56(1). Rather, it is a
substantive decision of the House to authorize the spending of
public money in the amount of $166 billion.
The resulting offence is such that the House has been denied its
right to vote on the expenditure of public money. There has been
a coup d'état, a raid on the treasury by the government House
leader. He is neutering every member of the House and the people
we represent by moving this motion. This is a blatant assault on
all members' privilege and, I suggest, as such is tantamount and
a motion that has not been moved in a previous parliament since
Confederation.
I want to stay focused on the narrow issue of the use of
Standing Order 56(1). The minister is entitled to move his
motion on matters related to “any routine motion” which is the
definition in clause (b) which states:
For the purposes of this Standing Order, “routine motion” shall
be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings,
which may be required for the observance of the priorities of the
House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its
business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of
the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or
the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or
adjournment.
This final clause in the motion moved by the government House
leader has the effect, not of applying a previous vote of the
House to other questions but of carrying these motions.
In other words, it is possible that the House could vote the
first item of the estimates but the remainder are deemed to have
been carried on division. That decision simply does not fall
within the framework of Standing Order 56(1). It has the effect
of authorizing the government to enact the supply bill, and this
is the key point, without the vote of the House.
1905
The fact that 25 members do not object cannot be used to take
the keys to the treasury. Substantive questions in the House are
decided by a majority of votes in the House.
The government House leader will be quick to point
out that it was a previous government that enacted Standing Order
56(1). Let me pre-empt that feeble argument and that feeble
attempt to distract from the real issue here. I will simply
state that it was wrong then and it is certainly wrong now, and
to use it in this expansive way further exaggerates the harm. It
was never intended to be used in such a broad and repressive
manner.
The role of the Speaker, as the Speaker well knows, is to
protect the rights of the minority. This is central to the
success of your office. It is a high office you
hold and one in which we place great trust. If this process is
allowed to stand then the government can do all its business in
one day and dismiss parliament with the back of its hand. The
government, in its haste to take the money and run, has crossed
the line.
I ask the Speaker to rule that this motion is a nullity because
it has been used to bypass the proper procedures of supply and
because it decides questions that do not fall under the
categories of matters that can be moved under routine
proceedings.
In the alternative, I would respectfully request that the
Speaker, given the gravity and the effect of such an expansive
and abusive use of this form of closure, hold in abeyance his
ruling until such time as he might have occasion to review all
the details and precedents which support this point of order.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much
time to review this. It is quite obvious, and I think most
members would agree, that the member does not have a very
legitimate point.
He has identified that Standing Order 56(1) gives the authority
to utilize this particular article for the management of the
business of the House, the arrangement of its proceedings and so
on. Therefore, it is applicable to a very broad range of usage.
The hon. member supports his argument by reading from the French
text of a motion that I moved in English, translating it himself
back to English and using that definition as being the one that
is applicable. The Speaker will know that has absolutely no
value in this place.
The motion I moved is the one that I moved, not the translation
that I provided to colleagues across the way for matters of
convenience. I could have moved it in French, of course, and I
can move it in English, but there is no rule in the House that
says I have to move it in both. I did not. I moved it in one
language and the only one that I moved it in on this particular
occasion happens to be the one in English.
I know the member across the way is probably still feeling the
pressure as a result of question period today, but I will not be
provoked by that. I will continue to refer to and respond to
what has been raised.
He has referred to the unprecedented usage of the motion. The
motion has been used on several occasions in the past. Standing
Order 56(1) has been utilized in the management of the House to
do such things as pass several readings of a bill in one day. It
has been used to introduce a bill and pass it at all stages in
one day. It has been used in bills that involve a charge against
the crown. It has been used to provide greater compensation,
including to members of parliament as early as a few days ago. It
has been used on a post office bill to settle a labour dispute,
and so on.
1910
It has also been alleged that this could be used to in some way
eliminate the opposition and get all bills through in one day.
I give credit to those who came before me for devising this rule
and it was not even the same government. It was the government
of which the leader of the member across was a member when this
rule was devised. It provides that any 25 members can stop its
use, which ensures that the minority will be protected. That is
why in a Chamber of 301 members, 25 members can actually prevent
the use of this particular device.
Mr. Peter MacKay: It does not help small parties.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that
is not the appropriate threshold or some such. I did not design
that rule. This House in its wisdom provided that rule with that
number in it. I am not here to question the wisdom of the size.
It is there. I am only here to argue that it is appropriate to
use the rule as it was designed.
The member is alleging that this device is being utilized to
pass supply. That is factually inaccurate. The hon. member
knows that this particular device today is a reference to the
amendments that were put on supply. I do not know if it makes a
major difference but it still makes his point incorrect.
Finally, the motions regulating business of routine proceedings
of the House clearly include the management of the House
business, debatable motions for instance, such as those in
Standing Order 67.
The point I want to make is that the application for the motion
was made in consultation with many members in the House and it
was moved appropriately. Unanimous consent was sought
previously, thereby notifying the entire House of my intent to
use it later in the day. Several minutes passed, perhaps 15 or
20. Bills were moved, private members' bills of all and sundry in
between, explanations thereof and only then did I move the actual
motion pursuant to Standing Order 56(1) under motions. At the
time that I did so, the House was certainly fully aware that it
was my intention to do just that.
The hon. member cannot claim that he was unaware. I do not
think anyone else in the House would claim that they were unaware
or unwilling. The usage was done in proper form pursuant to what
we have done before. Certainly the allegation that the motion
was used in a way that is unprecedented just does not hold
water. It was done in a way to manage the business of the House
in a quite legitimate and appropriate way.
Mr. Peter MacKay: That is false. The minister is dead
wrong.
Hon. Don Boudria: The hon. member can respond, heckle and
disagree, and that is his prerogative, I suppose, providing the
Speaker wishes to tolerate it, but it does not make what he says
factually correct.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that this rule was used quite
appropriately today for the management of the business of the
House. Heaven forbid, I am not defending Brian Mulroney.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has raised a
legitimate concern. I would ask the Chair to reflect on some of
the things that he has raised. Standing Order 56(1) has its
limits. Those limits are described in section (b) of the
standing orders and in Marleau and Montpetit. They give examples
of motions that have been moved.
As all of these have been raised, I will not go through entire
arguments, other than to say that Standing Order 56(1) was not
intended to usurp the constitutional duty of the opposition. It
was not intended to offset the important balance between the
government and opposition. It was meant to allow the progress of
routine business. The minister's motion is much too important
and substantive to get rammed through without debate or
amendment.
1915
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for
raising this matter.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the argument that he
made, particularly with respect to whether or not there is
something in the nature of the way this standing order was used
today that separates it out from the way it has been used in the
past, the argument that the hon. member made for instance with
respect to the use of this motion in respect of supply.
The government House leader argued that because it is only
amendments to supply, it is not supply. However I think that was
a very weak argument in itself. If it is amendments to supply,
it has to do with supply, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, it merits
your judgment as to whether or not the use of this standing order
with respect to supply is in fact a new use of this particular
standing order and one that is not in keeping either with
practice or with your own understanding of that particular
standing order.
Having said that, I would certainly want to indicate that I do
not consider it consultation that somebody gets up to do
something by unanimous consent, fails to do so and then some time
later seeks to do it through this particular standing order. It
may constitute some kind of notice but it does not constitute
consultation.
I think it is clear that again we are meeting a Liberal
deadline. There is some kind of cabinet retreat or something on
Thursday and Friday, so we are faced with the use of this
particular standing order.
The government has been willing to make its own sacrifices. It
dropped Bill C-6. It does not want that any more. It also
dropped Bill C-27. This has been one of the more unproductive
sessions. Not only did we lose all the things that the government
said it was going to do when it called the election, but it did
not even get around to the things that were dropped, because now
we are dropping them for some other Liberal deadline.
I know you want me to get to the point of order, Mr. Speaker,
and I will. It seems to me that what is at stake here is the
nature of this particular standing order itself. I remember when
it was brought in, I believe in 1991. At that time I remember
speaking to this particular change in the standing orders. If I
remember correctly, I think I referred to it as a sort of
parliamentary uber-menschen clause, and the way in which the
government saw itself, as Raskolnikov in Crime and
Punishment, rising above the ordinary moral limits, as
Raskolnikov did in Crime and Punishment, by killing the old
lady just to show that he was not bound by ordinary morality.
Here we have the Liberals doing the same thing as the Tories did
in 1991, showing that they are not bound by any kind of ordinary
parliamentary morality or notion of what would be proper due
process or procedure. They are quite prepared to just use
whatever kind of authority they have at their disposal, which is
what they did this morning.
You may say that 25 members could have stopped it.
Certainly the parties that have 25 members will have to ask
themselves why they did not. However this particular standing
order was designed in a parliament where all parties had 25
members or more. Here again we see a kind of carryover from a
previous parliament, that is to say, the parliament before 1993. I
am sure when this was set up it was understood that all parties
had at their disposal at least 25 members. The smallest party in
the House was the NDP and we had 44 members. To say 25 members
at that time was at least leaving open the possibility that if
any one party objected, this would not happen.
Today we have a situation that is quite different, and certainly
that standing order should have been changed by now. However,
there are a number of other things in our standing orders that
are still out of kilter because we have standing orders that were
written to serve an entirely different parliament and entirely
different political circumstances, that is to say, the political
circumstances that existed prior to 1993.
I would ask you, to reflect on whether or not there
is an opportunity here for you to rule, given the different
nature of this parliament and of the previous parliament, that
there is not something about this standing order that you might
find unacceptable.
Clearly it now has an effect on the rights of smaller parties
which it did not have at its inception.
1920
You, who are charged with the protection of the
rights of minorities in this parliament and the rights of smaller
parties, may want to consider whether you could make some ruling
or give some advice to the House as to whether this particular
standing order should be amended.
In doing so, Mr. Speaker, if your recommendation were to be
followed, providing you make such a recommendation, we could
remove from the standing orders something which is kind of a
blight on our parliamentary life here: The fact that the
government has this kind of power which it can use and has used
on a number of occasions and which really makes a mockery of a
lot of the so-called power that the opposition has.
Imagine a parliament in which no one party had 25
members except the government. Would it then be okay for the
government to just deem everything to have been passed on
division? I know this is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum
argument but nevertheless that exists. That is a possibility
within the standing orders if the Canadian public were to elect a
parliament in which only the government had more than 25 members.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: It almost happened in 1984.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: As the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle
said, it almost happened in 1984. I still want to call him the
member for Yorkton—Melville. Twenty-five years is a long time
for someone to have the name Yorkton—Melville, but we have to
get used to the new one.
In the parliament of 1984 there were 40 Liberals and 30 New
Democrats. It could well have been 20 New Democrats and 24
Liberals or something like that and then what would we have had
if we had this kind of standing order? It was bad enough that we
had that many Tories, I must say. The fact that we had that many
Tories led us to the situation that we find ourselves in now.
They became so full of themselves that they could not tolerate
any kind of minority opinion or criticism so we have this
standing order in front of us, a creation of the Conservatives.
We are glad to hear the contrition. We are glad to hear the
confession. We are glad to hear that they now realize that this
was wrong, but would it not have been wonderful if they had
realized that the first time I spoke to this rather than 10 years
later?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take it that we have had a bit of a fessing up about the genesis
of Standing Order 56(1).
I want to bring to the attention of the House for
your consideration four points in relation to this item.
This may be the third ruling the Chair will be
asked to make today. It has been a busy day for the Chair and
our sympathies to you for that.
On the face of this rule, which is really what the Chair has
to deal with here, I think what the member opposite is alleging
is that in some way the element of the order passed that provides
for what we are going to be doing in voting later on tonight does
not involve the management of our business, to take the words
from the rule. That is the one element of Standing Order 56(1)
that I think we are dealing with. We are dealing with the
management of the House's business.
The member suggests that the business of supply is special and
that it goes beyond the management of our business. The whole
business of supply to be sure is special and unique in terms of
the things that we do around here, but I suggest that we are not
managing all the supply procedure here. What we are doing is
managing the stream of voting that would occur in amendments to
the supply bill.
I point out that the order we have adopted does not prevent a
vote at second or third reading of the supply bill tonight. It
deals with all of the amendment motions.
1925
What we are actually managing here is the voting. I
would like to point out that the context that we are dealing with
as we vote these days in the House is actually quite a bit
different from the context that existed many years ago when this
rule was put in place.
All members will recognize that when the House votes now, as we
have been voting for a number of years, there are many
applications of votes. Our whips in the House routinely, and I
use that word advisedly, apply votes. That is a significant
change in context for the House. When we as a House routinely
apply votes, I suggest that the management of our business does
include the management of the application of these votes. Like
it or not we apply votes now.
Just a few days ago I think I noted the government whip actually
applying a vote for a member who was not even voting with the
government. This business of application of votes is now part of
our routine and the motion that we have adopted intends to manage
the flow of the application of votes. I suggest that is
consistent with Standing Order 56(1) which refers to passing
motions for the management of order of business.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona has suggested that the
minister had to consult before he moved the motion. The standing
order does not require consultation. The standing order requires
the denial of unanimous consent. That is precisely what was
denied when the minister moved his motion earlier. He did not
have to consult. He only had to find a denial of unanimous
consent. Therefore the precedent for the application of rule
56(1) was certainly there.
The suggestion is that because we now have parties with less than 25
members that is somehow relevant to the interpretation. I suggest
it is not. The rule is clear. The number of members required to
force a vote or to deny the motion is 25, not 12. The fact that
we have parties that have 12, 13 or 14 members is irrelevant. The
rule is clear. We are not in the business of rewriting the rule
here for the smaller parties. If we wish to do that later we
can.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion that this is out of
order is not correct. It certainly raises an issue, but on the
face of Standing Order 56(1), for the reasons discussed around
the House, I suggest that this motion and this manner of
disposition is in order.
The Speaker: I think the Chair has heard enough on
this point at this time to deal with the matter before the House
for the time being.
As the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough himself,
in his remarks at the outset, suggested, this is a matter that
the Chair could take under advisement and deal with at some later
time and that is exactly what I intend to do.
In so far as today's proceedings are concerned, the Chair is
satisfied that the motion was adopted this morning without 25
members rising in their place and without objection at that time
as to the procedural acceptability of the motion. The matter has
come before the House at this late hour and, in my view, the
motion has been adopted and will apply for tonight's proceedings,
and we will leave it at that.
The Chair is quite prepared to review the terms of the standing
order involved and the interpretation which might be given it in
the circumstances because, as the government House leader pointed
out in his list of occasions on which this rule has been used,
some of the usages might appear at any reasonable glance to go
beyond the terms of the standing order itself.
The Chair is prepared to have a look at the standing order, to
look at the usage and to also look at the possibility that the
modernization committee, which must have studied this matter,
might have had something to say on it. I will examine its report
again with interest, but I do not believe there was anything in
it concerning this particular standing order.
The Chair is always concerned for the fairness of the
applicability of rules to all hon. members in the House and of
course will want to reflect on the submissions made today. I
will take them under consideration and will come back to the
House, since we are likely adjourning tomorrow, at some time in the
distant future.
* * *
1930
MAIN ESTIMATES, 2001-02
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—HEALTH
Hon. Allan Rock (for the President of the Treasury Board)
moved:
That
Vote 1, in the amount of $1,268,024,342, under HEALTH—
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take part in the
debate tonight with respect to the main estimates of the
government, particularly as they relate to Health Canada.
May I say at the outset that as Minister of Health and speaking
on behalf of my colleagues in government and those professionals
with whom I work at Health Canada, we never forget that we in our
own generation are custodians of an achievement of enormous
value, the Canadian health care system.
It is an achievement that is more than simply a government
program. It is a national undertaking that reflects the values
and priorities of Canadians. We are committed to strengthening,
to preserving and to promoting that system. That is the purpose
for which we ask for the resources that are included in the main
estimates.
As we discuss Health Canada and Canada's health care system,
perhaps the most important point of departure and the matter I
would first like to mention in addressing this issue in the House
tonight is the agreement that was reached among the governments
in the country just a few months ago with respect to the present
state and the future of Canada's health care system.
[Translation]
A few months ago we negotiated with the governments of the
provinces an agreement on the future of our health care system.
Last September, the Prime Minister signed an agreement with the
provincial premiers which contained two key elements, the first
of these being more money.
We have added considerably to the federal transfer payments to
the provinces so that they will have the resources on hand for
health care delivery. In fact, we have added 35% over the next
five years to the transfer payments to the provinces.
[English]
These considerable amounts will put the provincial governments
in a position to meet their responsibilities in the coming years
for providing on the ground health services throughout the
country.
[Translation]
The second key element was the areas on which we reached
agreement in order to improve and strengthen our health care
system. Clearly, our system is facing major challenges at this
time. As a government, we have agreed on some significant steps
in order to face these challenges.
[English]
Whether it is with respect to the shortages of doctors and
nurses, whether it is with respect to finding new and innovative
ways of providing frontline services to Canadians in communities
where they live, whether it is with respect to renewing equipment
available in the health care system, or broadening the
accessibility of home and community care, or increasing the use
of information technology, or promoting health as opposed to
simply curing illness, all of these key elements were included in
the agreement reached among governments just a few months ago.
1935
I can report to the House that since last September, as Minister
of Health I have worked with my counterparts across the country
to make sure that we pursue the common ground we have reached,
that we act on the agreement of last September and carry forward
toward its objectives.
Apart from the cash transfer, apart from the elements of
agreement, apart from the work we are now doing in common, there
are other aspects of last September's entente that I would like
to draw to the House's attention and report upon.
There were three targeted funds where the Government of Canada
committed specific amounts to particular purposes. The first was
a targeted fund of $1 billion for new equipment.
[Translation]
We earmarked $1 billion for this. This amount was made available
to the provinces to renew Canada's medical facilities. It was
distributed on a per capita basis, and is now in the hands of
the provinces.
[English]
Since last September $1 billion has been available to the
provinces to purchase MRIs, CT scans, new X-ray equipment,
lithotripters, surgical suites, whatever it is in the way of
medical equipment that might be needed on the ground.
In Ontario, for example, my own home province, that amounts to
almost $400 million that has been available since last September
to be used by provincial governments in buying new equipment. It
is ironic that we would have read recently about the shortages of
MRIs here in Ottawa or elsewhere in the province when the
provincial government has access to almost $400 million and has
had for some months. Naturally we urge our provincial partners
to use that money for the purpose for which it was intended and
apply it toward the purchase of new medical equipment to meet the
needs of Canadians wherever they may live.
The second targeted fund of the three was $800 million which we
made available to fund innovative new practices in making
frontline services available. What that means is access to
doctors and nurses by Canadian families where they live and when
they need those services.
We are used to the system of family physicians practising in
private offices on a fee per service basis so that during
business hours during the week they are there to see patients.
However, we all know that the need for a physician when someone
is ill or injured does not end at the close of the business day.
We also need to have access for families in the evenings,
overnight and on the weekends. It is for that reason that the
country has been moving toward different ways of making primary
care or frontline services available, such as community health
centres, shared practices, looking at new ways of paying doctors,
and having teams of doctors and nurse practitioners to respond to
community needs.
The Government of Canada wants to encourage provinces to pursue
these innovative new approaches. It is for that reason we have
set aside $800 million in the primary care fund which we are
providing to provincial governments to fund innovative new ways
of meeting these frontline needs.
We have now blocked out the criteria with respect to how that
money will be provided to provinces and the objectives we are
trying to reach in making it available, and I believe it is going
to be a source of improved services in the years ahead.
The third dedicated fund from last September is $500 million to
encourage the adoption of new information and communication
technologies in health care. What does this mean? It means two
things.
First, it means telemedicine to make the services and the
opinions of specialists available to Canadians in remote or rural
areas. It means telemedicine so that there can be
teleconsultation in psychiatric services. It also means
teleradiology, taking an X-ray or an MRI in the northern part of
a province and transmitting it digitally to an expert or a
specialist in a major urban centre where it can be read.
The second purpose is electronic patient records so that no
matter where we travel in the country our medical information is
available to health care professionals who need it to provide us
with services. If we are ill or injured, God forbid, and arrive
at a hospital, information about our case which is taken by the
emergency room physician, the admitting doctor, the family
doctor, the specialist, the home care worker or the pharmacist
can all be shared in one electronic record that is instantly
accessible.
1940
That way we would avoid the repetition of tests and the
repetition of the history. We would avoid miscommunication
between patient and provider. We would make sure that everybody
is aware of things such as allergies that the patient might have.
This is the way of modernizing health care, of making it better
for Canadians, and these targeted funds will help to do that.
The last element of the September agreement that I want to
report to the House on has to do with accountability. I believe
we are all in agreement on all sides of the House that we have to
be accountable to taxpayers for the moneys we spend. In health
care that is no less true, yet in health care there has never
been a systemic way of looking at the outcomes in the health care
system to assess whether taxpayers are getting their money's
worth. It is for that reason that the agreement among all
governments provides that starting in September 2002 there will
be regular reports to Canadians that measure the performance of
the health care system and tell Canadians in plain language on a
regular basis how it is doing.
That means that on indicators such as accessibility of frontline
services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, accessibility of home and
community care, and readmission rates of hospitals to test
whether they are discharging patients too soon, we will be
measuring what happens and reporting to Canadians regularly. That
will provide a way for Canadians to know how this health care
money is being spent, now at $100 billion a year in Canada, and
it will provide a way for us to determine where the weaknesses
are in the system so they can be addressed.
Let me add just one other matter. During the election campaign
of last fall the government also undertook to create a citizens'
council on quality care, which means taking the quality control
function out of the hands of government and putting into the
hands of Canadian citizens. It means creating a council to which
we will appoint Canadians from across the country who will
monitor the regular reports we make to make sure they are
objective, complete, accurate, readable and usable by average
Canadians in their homes. It means a citizens' council on
quality care which will itself report on how the health care
system is doing and will monitor quality in health care services.
That is an important way in which we will make the health care
system accountable to Canadians.
Before I conclude let me touch upon just a few other things we
are working on at Health Canada which members will see reflected
in the estimates before the House tonight.
Let me first touch upon health research. This is an area where
the Government of Canada has long been seen to have a unique
responsibility. Since the 1930s when we created the Medical
Research Council, research has been a federal domain. Provincial
governments are also active but the federal role has been
recognized and respected.
Two years ago we replaced the Medical Research Council with the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The House adopted Bill
C-13 to create the institutes. Since the adoption of that
legislation a year ago much has happened. We have appointed the
president, Dr. Alan Bernstein of Toronto. Dr. Bernstein and his
board of directors have been hard at work. They have named the
first 13 institutes, the original slate of institutes. There are
now institutes of health research on everything from cancer to
mental health to diabetes. These 13 institutes each have
appointed scientific directors. Those scientific directors, with
their advisory councils of experts, are putting together
strategic research plans.
At the same time as we have created these institutes, the
Government of Canada has more than doubled the amount of money
that we make available each year for health research. It is now
over half a billion dollars and I can tell the House that it is
on a trajectory upward, so that we can meet our commitment to
Canadians to double in the course of the coming years the amount
that this country spends on research and development.
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research are off to a good
start. Around the world they are earning Canada a reputation for
excellence. They are attracting the best and the brightest to
stay in Canada or to return to Canada and do their health
research here. I believe those institutes hold the promise of
advancing the frontiers of medical and health knowledge and of
accelerating the discovery of or treatments and cures for
diseases and illnesses that afflict Canadians.
1945
I might also report to the House with respect to some of the
other initiatives in which we are now engaged.
The Speaker earlier tonight made a ruling with respect to Bill
S-15 which has to do with tobacco. I would like to briefly
mention what we are doing in that regard because tobacco is the
number one public health issue in the country. Every year 45,000
Canadians die prematurely because of tobacco use. That is more
Canadians than those who die annually as a result of car
accidents, suicides, murder and alcohol combined. It is a tragic
toll and we can do something about it.
Recent indications are that smoking rates are coming down in
Canada but they are not coming down fast enough. There are
troubling numbers about young people, especially young women, who
are starting to smoke. We adopted a strategy with many parts.
The Tobacco Act, which the House enacted in 1997, increased
taxes. Recently we brought taxes up on cigarettes because that
helps, especially among youth who are price sensitive. We are
making sure that the public is aware of the dangers of smoking by
informing them of the health risks and about the strategies of
tobacco companies that try to encourage people to smoke and
continue to smoke.
We will continue to with the tobacco issue. Members will see
that we are devoting $480 million in the course of the coming
five years to this strategy, including major investments in media
campaigns to increase the awareness among Canadians, especially
young Canadians, of the dangers of smoking.
I would like to touch upon two or three other areas.
The availability and the quality of health services in rural
areas has been a preoccupation of mine for some time. The fact
is that almost one-third of our population lives outside the
major centres. About nine million people live in communities of
10,000 persons or less. If we look at the demographics in rural
and remote Canada, we find that the population generally is older
than in urban centres. The health statistics are less
encouraging. There are more illnesses and more injuries. Yet at
the same time, where the needs are greater, services are often
less accessible. Whether it is ambulances or emergency rooms,
family physicians, nurse practitioners, specialists or equipment,
rural Canadians do not have the same access as urban Canadians.
One of the grave concerns I have about two tier medicine in
Canada is not between the rich and the poor, but between the
urban and the rural Canadian. For that reason, two years ago I
opened the office of rural health at Health Canada. Although we
can say the delivery of health services is a provincial
responsibility, and we respect scrupulously provincial
jurisdiction, nonetheless it is a national challenge to ensure
that the promise of the Canada Health Act is fulfilled for all
Canadians, not just those who live in major urban centres.
We appointed as executive director of the office of rural health
a physician who practised in rural Canada and a former member of
the executive for the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada. We
set about putting together a national strategy to deal with this
challenge. We convened a national conference on rural health at
the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George. We
set aside $50 million in budget 2000 to fund pilot projects at
the rural level. We brought together people from across the
country to work with us to find ways of making the accessibility
of services more appropriate in rural Canada.
Part of the answer lies in telemedicine and using modern
technology. That will help a great deal, but it is not the only
answer. It is also a question of attracting physicians and
nurses and keeping them in rural Canada. It is a question of
overcoming the sense of professional isolation that often drives
doctors away. This is something that we have to work on because
we cannot abide a situation in which one-third of the population
is denied access to quality care in Canada. Working with my
provincial partners, I intend to continue in that regard.
In the few moments remaining I might simply mention the organs
and tissues initiative with which members are familiar. The
House committee on health made such good recommendations, all
which I accepted. We are changing nutritional labelling to
provide more information to Canadians about the foods they eat.
We are making medical marijuana available on a compassionate
basis for those who are ill.
1950
Of course, we have the draft bill with respect to cloning and
assisted human reproduction which I put before the health
committee on May 3. That committee is working and will return
with recommendations in the months ahead.
All of this is important, challenging and exciting work. I turn
to it with a sense of obligation to the House and Canadians to
make sure that we preserve and strengthen Canada's health care
system.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, our population is aging and I see two
problems looming. One is that a lot of older people will either
choose to be treated at home and to go through an illness in the
comfort of their own home or in some cases there are no hospital
beds for long term patients because a lot of illnesses suffered
by elderly people are long term.
Does the minister have any plan or vision for how these
individuals can be realistically treated without simply
transferring the burden of their care to the family or having
unqualified, or unsuitable or unreliable assistance that really
does not meet the needs of the patients and families?
The second question is about patients who do not need to be
hospitalized but do need some kind of care. Increasingly there
are no facilities to which these patients can be moved, so
hospital beds are taken up unnecessarily, and these patients
simply have no where to go and no one to care for them. This is
not only a problem today but will be an increasing problem.
Could the minister tell the House about his vision, plans
and what he is doing about it?
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Calgary—Nose Hill is right. with an aging population and the
differences in the way the practice of medicine is now being
carried out, the focus of care is shifting from hospitals to the
community. In fact, 25 years ago almost half of all health
spending took place in hospitals. Today it is less than a third.
We can see it for ourselves. People go in at nine in the morning
for surgery and come out at four in the afternoon. We remember
in our youth that people used to go into the hospital for a week
or two when they had their appendix out, or some other such
operation. That is one aspect.
The other aspect is that as people age, more of them want to
stay at home. I can speak personally and say that in the last
five years both of my parents died of cancer. They chose to die
at home. In 1994 and 1995 my sisters and I had to find out about
home and community care. We had to look in the yellow pages
under H to find out what we could about home care. It was not
easy. We found there were gaps in what was covered and what was
not.
We have to rationalize this and accept that the Canada Health
Act, which covers only services in hospitals and by doctors, was
written at a time that was different. Now there is a whole range
of home and community care that is unaddressed. The provinces do
their best to try to cover it. Some have very elaborate home
care programs, like Saskatchewan and British Columbia. With
others it is less consistent.
In answer to the member's question, I can say that the
Government of Canada has to work with provinces to find a way to
make home and community care an integral part of medicare because
it is just as medically necessary for aging seniors to get care
at home as it is for people to get the care in hospitals. It may
not be provided by doctors, but whether it is nurses or home care
workers it is just as important.
I want to work with my provincial colleagues and partners to
find a way to address this increasing need. I think it can be
done. A couple of years ago I suggested a national home care
approach which was not well received. Perhaps the atmosphere at
the time was not very positive. Since the agreement of last
September, I think the atmosphere has improved enough to continue
those discussions.
1955
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have two quick questions for the minister.
He referred to last September's agreement, which was signed here
in Ottawa. He neglected to tell us that all the premiers asked
him to provide for indexing in the transfer payments. Why did he
not agree to this request?
Second, I would also ask him if he could tell us the per diem
salary or remuneration of the chair of the task force he set up
to review the Canada Health Act, former premier Romanow? Could
he tell us what he gets daily?
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, yes, I referred to the agreement
we negotiated a few months ago here in Ottawa. I am very proud
to have been part of this effort.
In my opinion, it was an important moment in history when all
governments, including the government of Quebec, regardless of
their affiliation, their ideology, agreed on a single substantial
document and on health care priorities.
I remember well when the Premier of Quebec was there with the
Prime Minister of Canada. After signing the agreement, Mr.
Bouchard said “That was important, and I would like to thank the
Prime Minister of Canada for his patience and for the agreement
we have just reached”. I was very proud and I think it was
something important.
As regards Roy Romanow, the chair the commission we set up, I
cannot say this evening exactly how much he is being paid, but I
can assure the hon. member that his work is vital to the future
of our health care system.
He will examine thoroughly our needs for the next ten or fifteen
years in the health care system. Mr. Romanow, as the premier of
Saskatchewan, managed a system for 10 years. He is well placed
to provide valuable advice.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about the follow up to
the September 11, 2000 accord. Today is June 12, 2001, nine
months since the September accord was approved. If a woman can
have a baby in nine months, then surely the government can
produce something concrete in terms of promises made at that
time. In particular, I would like to ask the minister about the
commitment to deal with the critical shortage of health care
professionals and nurses that is rampant across the country
today.
The accord promised to ensure that each jurisdiction would have
the people with the skills to provide appropriate levels of care
and services and commits governments to work together to do just
that.
Nothing on that front has happened since September 11, 2000. The
government has made a lot of promises, but failed to act on a
very fundamental issue for ensuring quality health care. When
will we see action?
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, we have seen action on a
number of fronts, and I am happy to respond in detail to my hon.
friend's question.
First, this year's transfers to the provinces reflect the
agreements of last September and the increased amounts. This
year Ontario, to use my home province as an example, will receive
an additional $1.2 billion from the Government of Canada in the
transfers available for health. It is interesting to note that
when the province of Ontario tabled its budget a few weeks ago,
an additional amount of $1.2 billion was made available for
health. In other words, the Government of Canada is contributing
exactly what the Harris government is increasing for health
spending this year.
2000
Second, the member speaks about the availability of doctors and
nurses, which is of course the very first thing that the Prime
Minister and the premiers listed in the priorities that were
identified for government action. I am happy to report that we
have made progress there, two things among many.
First, the health ministers agreed and published a national
nursing strategy some months ago which reflects the hard work of
the nursing profession and the provincial governments in sorting
out ways to deal with the shortages in nursing care in Canada:
addressing the underlying problems of working conditions;
increasing enrolment in the nursing schools; and addressing some
of the grievances that the profession has had with respect to its
position in the health care system.
In relation to doctors: Three years ago total enrolment in
medical schools in this country was about 1,570 places. Next
September it will be 2,000. We are going in the right direction.
I could go on but I think my friend has the general idea.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the minister has to do with the fact that he wants
to allow those who have AIDS to smoke marijuana.
I heard the minister speak tonight about tobacco and the effect
it has on our health. Is the minister looking at legalizing
marijuana? I did some research on marijuana. As soon as people
smoke one cigarette it goes into their brain cells, stays there
for nine days and then continues to build up.
If the minister is looking at legalizing marijuana, has he done
any research on its side effects? Could he assure Canadians that
we do not have to worry about it?
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the member has been good
enough to speak succinctly about her concern in this regard.
First, my focus has been on the medical availability of
marijuana for compassionate purposes. As hon. members know, we
have now published proposed regulations to govern the way in
which those who are ill or dying can get access to marijuana if a
doctor feels it can help relieve their symptoms.
On the subject of either decriminalizing or legalizing
marijuana, as the member knows the House created a special
committee by resolution some two or three weeks ago which I
believe has now been named and which will soon begin sitting.
That special committee has been asked to look at the whole
question of Canada's policy toward the non-medical use of drugs.
That issue will come before the committee. I think it is
important not to prejudge the outcome. We must let the committee
do its work and hear the various points of view.
It is a subject on which there are varied opinions, even within
the hon. member's party. I think the committee should listen to
the evidence, hear the various viewpoints and come back to the
House with recommendations that can be debated here so that we
can ultimately make a decision based on the facts.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
from the outset I want to elaborate on the points made by the
Minister of Health in his speech. The minister refused, however,
to answer a question from the Bloc Quebecois member about Mr.
Romanow's salary. Even more strange is the fact that, during the
some 20 minutes that he spoke, the Minister of Health did not
mention the Romanow commission. He did not say anything about it.
He talked about his government's accomplishments, about rural
communities, the September agreement, the citizen's council and
the non medical use of marijuana. That was fine. I told myself
“He is going to talk about the Romanow commission”. It is
supposed to be the key to the future, the country's vision in the
area of health. But nil, not a word.
We know, because we put the question to him several months
ago, that the minister is not comfortable. It gives him a rash
when we talk about the Romanow commission. He does not like it. I
understand. This is a man who seems to have some vision.
They have imposed on him an unemployed premier who is too young to be
appointed to the Senate, because the Prime Minister appoints
senators whose average age is 72. Mr. Romanow must wait a few
more years. So that he does not remain idle, the government put
him in charge of a royal commission of inquiry. His salary is not
known. He is on his own, looking after his own business.
2005
In the meantime, the minister is talking about his vision of
health care in this country. He seems to have solutions to the
problem, yet it is entrusted to a royal commission. That is a
waste of money. For 18 months or 2 years, there will be nothing
forthcoming from this government in the area of health. What
the Romanow commission will manage to do, once the Liberal Party
has changed leaders, is to serve as the party's political
commission in the next election, at the taxpayer's expense.
Otherwise it is pointless.
The minister seems to be struggling with this. While not
wishing to put words in his mouth, of course, I am not sure the
Minister of Health was in agreement with that. If it had been
one of the ideas he had come up with, he would have referred to
it this evening. When the minister was talking health with his
colleagues, did he mention the royal commission? Not at all,
not a word, it must be forgotten if possible. We get the feeling
there are little domestic squabbles on the government side.
I thought the minister would refer to the commission when he
spoke. The fact that he did not speaks volumes.
The minister probably senses a cabinet shuffle coming that will
end up with him in Canadian heritage, instead of having to live
with a royal commission of which he is not fond.
From the health point of view, we need a vision, but having a
vision requires knowledge of what is going on in the field.
In Ottawa we have the good fortune to have 301 men and
women who have been elected by the voters in their ridings and
who are, I hope, at least in this corner of the House, connected
with the people in their ridings. If that connection exists,
then one knows what the problems are.
If one knows what their problems are, and if one is lucky
enough to have been gifted with average intelligence, one can
find solutions.
There is the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, and
there is one in the other place as well. The minister does not
seem to be lacking in intelligence; he is capable of identifying
the problem. He is someone who does not appear to be afraid of
talking to his provincial colleagues, or so it would seem. He
was asked about the water issue. He was told “There is a problem
with water. Today, in many places in Canada, people cannot drink
a glass of water without running the risk of being poisoned and
without endangering their health”.
He was told “Keep pushing. The House passed a motion on this”.
He seems to be pushing with his provincial colleagues, and we
think it is fine. If the problem is known, let us get on with the
solutions.
When the minister mentions the September agreement, he is
putting a spin on things. I am sorry to use this expression, but
it is very well known here. A spin is a way of presenting
reality from a different angle. With the present Minister of
Finance, we have got used to hearing that the government will
invest $500 million, $2 billion, $300 million over five years and
that the tax cut will be $8 billion or $5 billion over seven
years. The timeframes are always long.
When the Minister of Health tells us that the government is
going to invest $800 million in new equipment, this is not
annually. This is what it would take annually to make up the
ground lost. It is for the entire duration of the agreement,
unindexed, as the NDP member pointed out.
The federal share of the cost of replacing medical equipment
over a number of years is $800 million. We number more than 30
million in this country, so this is not much per capita. In the
more remote or rural areas, medical care costs more because
additional incentives are required.
This government has been out of new ideas since 1993. With a
few exceptions, it does not know what it is going to do the next
day. Why? Because the Prime Minister is like that. He has
said “Bring me a problem, I will fix it”. That is it.
Sometimes he fixes it, sometimes he does not. Most of the time
it is fixed all wrong, and health is one of these problems.
Things have been discussed in Canada for years, but for often
political, reasons, they are totally rejected. The government
refuses even to discuss them.
2010
As regards the initiatives involving tax points, the government
says “Ah, no tax points. We want nothing to do with that. We
gave you your cheque. You have your money. Do your bit. When
you run out, come back and see me. Knock at my door, and, if
you are nice, I will give you some”.
We have long talked about tax points across the country,
regardless of political stripe. What we are saying as well is
that tax points assure the provinces of stable funding. Of
course, once again, this does not resolve all the problems. We
have to talk about equalization.
We agree that it is less to the advantage of the poorest
provinces to take tax points than to have an amount of money that
is the same for everyone.
Enough of ad hoc funding for the country's health care
system. That is what it is. When the provinces want to develop
new initiatives, the federal government will tell them “There are
five basic principles in the legislation we are thinking of
changing. That is perhaps why we appointed a former premier, who
could perhaps not be appointed to the Senate but could perhaps
come up with solutions. So, wait for the commission to submit
its report, that is in at least two years”.
This is not planning. In the meantime, people are tearing out
their hair trying to find ways to keep cardiologists in the
regions and to attract family doctors in the provinces. We see
this in Quebec.
The Minister of Health does not seem to know what is going on in
Quebec. The government introduced a policy concerning the
principle of family doctors being available seven days a week
throughout Quebec, but the Minister of Health said that anything
outside normal store hours was perhaps excessive. He should
perhaps take a look at initiatives such as those in Quebec.
The legislation should be reviewed and modernized. The
government is afraid. It feels that five principles are enough
and it would rather interpret. The government is afraid of
talking about private sector health care.
As far as the private sector is concerned, we will recall that
the future former leader of the official opposition had held up
a little sign during one of the debates in the last election
campaign that read “no two tier health system” because he was not
capable of explaining this clearly enough and people did not
believe him. He therefore felt obliged to write it down on his
little sign, thinking that then he would be believed, but it did
not make much difference. The private sector is already a
presence. It is a presence in both health and education.
Not very far away from here, to give an example of what is
happening with increasing frequency in the health field and will
continue to happen, a new school was recently opened in one of
the municipalities in the Outaouais region. This happens
because of heavy development in a given area. That school was
built by the private sector. The school board and the
government signed a 25 year lease and will operate the
school.
The school's bricks and mortar were put in place with private
sector funding, but its soul remains the responsibility of the
school board and the department of education. We will be seeing
more and more of this, yet the government is afraid to raise
these questions and has struck a royal commission to find
solutions to all our problems. Even if they are saying over on
that side that they have solved a problem, there are still more
unsolved.
However, I praise the Minister of Health's handling of the
hepatitis C compensation issue. It is not working properly,
however. I thank him because I want to give credit where credit
is due. He is prepared to act on this but speed is of the
essence.
We have a supposed agreement on financial compensation, along
with a law practice that is supposed to be handling it, but
there are still problems. The payments are delayed, 20%
or 40% of them. Very few people have received all their money.
The minister has some responsibility in this.
The government and parliament have some responsibility in this.
No one better say the problem is resolved because the people are
no longer on Parliament Hill with placards demanding
compensation. It is not resolved or it is only partly so.
In this regard, I repeat, when the minister does something good,
I tell him. When he does not do what he is supposed to, I tell
him, as well, with respect. So it is important to resolve this
matter.
There is another matter to be resolved at some point.
2015
My colleague from New Brunswick raised the issue of marijuana.
It is not enough to be for it or against it. The government has
been talking about this one for years. They will settle it. The
minister said “I will make marijuana available for medical
purposes”. This is the compassionate element.
However, there is no pot on the market that meets the
government's standards. There is none, and it have
no system. It has given no thought to the criminal
code. It has given no thought to the problems involving the
various laws governing the country, the provinces and the
municipalities.
So we have another problem. The government is forced to go to
court, and the people it wanted to help are arrested by the
police. So that is not resolved.
A committee on the non-medical use of drugs was just set up and
I have the honour and the privilege to sit on it. I must say that
I hope people will be patient. If we are ready to show compassion
for the sick, we will have to show compassion for those who sit
on that committee, because its mandate is very broad.
We will also have to target the problems. What is the
committee's mandate? Its members will define it in the fall. We
will work hard to ensure that this mandate is as clear as
possible so that we can take a stand on the issue and on
plausible and easily feasible solutions.
Will we deal with the drug issue by saying we will find
solutions? The NDP member for Vancouver East sits on that committee. She
represents, the poorest part of
Vancouver.
It is the part of
Vancouver that is not shown on postal cards. It is her riding.
There are problems. We must tackle this and find solutions to the
problems of heroin users.
Will this also be included in the committee's mandate? Maybe
yes, maybe no. Some will say “Instead of legalizing other drugs,
perhaps we should deal with those who have serious problems with
existing drugs”. This is probably what the committee will look
at.
This being said, I would like to talk a little bit about what
will happen this evening. Unless something out of the ordinary or
some miracle happens, this is the last evening of the first
session following the election.
After an election, people thought, after all, it had only been
re-elected for three and one-half years or I should say three
years and five months, that the government would come up
with some good ideas.
Once again, things are something like at an auction, going
once, going twice, going three times, sold. It takes three times
to get a bill passed. The first time, no go, then there is an
election. Then there is the second time, and in mid-mandate,
there is the throne speech. This puts everything back to square
one. Then things start all over again for the third time, but
now there is a general election. Going once, going twice, going
three times.
How many times has the endangered species legislation come up?
It is endless. Then there is the young offenders legislation.
Here we go again, changes, modifications, then it gets blocked in
the Senate. Then an election comes along. Soon another change will
be coming: the Prime Minister. Then there will be another throne
speech. We get nowhere.
In the health field, there is even less progress. This evening
we in the opposition had the opportunity, with the means
currently available to us I must add, to get some important
messages across regardless, messages that open up some
discussion. Perhaps we should vote for part of the night.
I will say what the public would say to us “At the rate you guys
are getting paid now, it won't hurt you to sit overnight from
time to time”. We stop, but at the same time we are getting a
message across “The job is not over. Our work on important bills
is not over. We would like to get on our way. No problem. I
want to get home, but that is not the right idea”.
However there are some important points that are not settled. Any
MP will be prepared to stay here in order to solve a really
important problem.
With that, I will wish you, Madam Speaker, as well as all
members, a good summer, and a healthy one. As far as health is
concerned, however, we are on our own. Unfortunately, I do not
think that the government can help us on that.
2020
We have to count on the provinces, and they have all the trouble
in the world delivering services because of a government that
hands over money for the health of all Quebecers and Canadians a
little bit at a time.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I thank the member for the clarity of his remarks about the
government. I appreciate what he said about the Romanow
commission.
Does he share my point of view? I could provide him with a copy
of the document, if he likes. I asked the Library of Parliament
for information about what the provinces had done in the way of
commissions of inquiry or task forces on the future of health
care systems.
The House will not be surprised to learn that, between 1993 and
the present, seven provinces have themselves formed commissions:
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec and
Ontario. So, seven out of ten provinces have already done what
the federal government wants to do.
We understand that the provinces are doing this, because they
are the ones providing the services. They are responsible for
organizing the health care system so that care can be provided.
Does the member agree with me that we do not need a commission
such as the one proposed by the federal government, because this
is not its primary responsibility second, because we know where
the needs are and how the health care system must be reorganized;
and third, because money is a large consideration, but not the
only one?
For example, in Ottawa last September, the premiers asked that
transfer payments be indexed. Was the government willing to do
this? Of course not.
Does the hon. member share this point of view?
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Speaker, several provinces are
experiencing that problem. They consulted the service providers,
namely the doctors, nurses, volunteers, staff members and
administrators. These men and women are familiar with the
problem.
They must make hard decisions on a daily basis. At the same
time, they have to come to Ottawa to beg. They are asking the
federal government to restore at least the 1993-94 level. Perhaps
tax points or a new equalization system might help some
provinces.
The problem is known, and the provinces took their
responsibilities. There may be some exceptions in various types
of services, but I will talk about one province, mine,
Quebec. I am not necessarily a friend of the government in
office but the fact remains that regardless of political
stripe some things that are done in Quebec deserve our
attention. The federal government wants to reinvent the wheel
with the Romanow commission.
Ask people on the streets, in Quebec and elsewhere in the
country. They do not care at all about the commission. The Bloc
Quebecois member is right. Money may not be everything, but the
right choices must be made and it is a lot easier to implement
them quickly with money. This is why we are asking for a fair
redistribution.
That is right, we must talk about the Canada Health Act, but in
the meantime, can we help with the financial situation of the
municipalities? What credibility can the commission have when we
do not even know how much Mr. Romanow's is paid to sit on the
commission?
We parliamentarians may not have all agreed on our increase, but
everyone did agree that the non-taxable part was not right and that
it had to be transparent. A royal commission of inquiry is set up
and we do not even know how much the commissioner is paid per day
or what his expense account is.
The hon. member is absolutely right. At one point, the work was
done and what we must do next is to implement the solutions put
forward by those who provide the services, namely the provinces.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of the Conservative
health critic because we are dealing with a very critical issue,
that is the future of medicare, and the appropriate level of
expenditure by the federal government for support of our
universal public health care system.
2025
In that context it would be remiss of me not to note that the
erosion of medicare and the slide to privatization actually began
under the Conservatives and under the direction of Brian Mulroney
where we were on a path of seeing all cash transfers to the
provinces for health care dry up by the year 2001. The Liberals
came along and put in a cash floor in terms of transfer payments
but really levelled the playing field to the lowest possible
denominator.
I would expect that the Conservatives have had a re-thinking
around this issue of transfer payments and the need for cash to
the provinces. I would like to know what the current position of
the Conservative Party is with respect to the level of funding
from the federal government to the provinces and whether that
party would be prepared to commit some of the $15 billion in
surplus, if it had a chance, to health care to ensure medicare is
sustained and to actually move our system toward the revamped,
reformed system we are all talking about.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Speaker, I remind my colleague that
Mr. Romanow, who is chairing the commission, was probably one of
the worst premiers in terms of cutting health care and creating
huge problems for the system in his province, as with labour
relations and with other fields. On this I think that
regardless of stripe choices were made.
As concerns the public health system, we want to keep a public
system with the broad principles of the Canada Health Act. What
we said in the election, in 1997 and 2000, is that this had to be
brought back to the 1993-94 level, which had been agreed on, and
then move to stable funding.
This is why we talk of tax points and renegotiating the system
of equalization payments, so that the richer provinces, like the
poorer ones, may have stable funding within the whole transfer
system, be it in health care, education, social assistance or
other areas.
Yes, they said they had to increase, but by how much. There is
no question of drawing an amount out of a hat. The provinces
have already identified criteria. First, there is the question
of economic growth that accompanies equalization tax points. That
is important. There are richer provinces and there are poorer
provinces. This is why one of the elements in the transfer must
be the aspect of economic growth.
Population is another important consideration. We are also
saying that distances must be taken into account. Urban centres
like Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City can afford
different quality services. There should be a rating that takes
the geographic and demographic dispersal of a region into
account.
There is also the question of population aging. In some
regions and in some provinces the rate of aging is much higher,
requiring a more targeted inflow of funds.
To these transfers, but first to these transfers in terms of tax
points and equalization, these calculations, should be added a
different approach understood by all the beneficiaries of the
health care system in Canada.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska
for sharing his comments with us. I was going to thank him for
his suggestions as well, but I did not find any of those in his
speech.
There are criticisms of the health system, as he says. He tells
us that there are still problems and I think the Minister of
Health has said the same himself, that not everything has been
said or done in that area.
I thank my colleague because he has provided our viewing
audience with an opportunity to make a comparison between the
health minister's words and what our government has accomplished,
as summarized in a sober yet eloquent manner by the minister, and
the inconsistencies of the opposition critic's words.
He tells us we lack vision, yet at the same time he faults us
for striking a royal commission to address the problems and come
up with a long term vision of the ongoing problems.
2030
This is totally inconsistent. We have indeed taken steps to
meet this challenge of providing a long term vision for Canada's
health care system. The opposition critic has carefully omitted
any reference to research, an area of great success. Our
government's investments in health research will make it possible
for there to be a thorough renewal of our country's health
services and health care in the years to come. That is vision.
I would like to hear the opposition critic fault us, if he is
able, for our investments in research and in health in Canada.
Mr. André Bachand: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, I thank the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and give him
greetings.
It is easy for a government to cut an arm or a leg off the
provinces and then offer them an arm or a few toes. This is
pretty much what happened with the government.
Since the 1993-94 cuts, the total percentage of federal funding
we are seeing today is not huge. The government cut because it
wanted to fight the deficit. Perhaps it should have cut
somewhere besides health care. Then the government found itself
investing much more publicly than in the past.
We do not oppose health care research. We oppose people who
waste time looking for solutions that have already been found.
This is why we are asking so many questions on the idea of a
royal commission of inquiry, when, if I listen to the
parliamentary secretary speaking for his minister, I will not
criticize him here, he surely has a vision and the tools he needs
to find solutions to the health care problems we face. We do not
need a royal commission to do so.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I would like to advise the Chair
that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from
Yellowhead.
Believe it or not, we are debating the estimates this evening.
The portion of the estimates we are debating is the portion
allocated to the health department. The health department budget
is $2.7 billion for the current fiscal year. I am sure it will
go up because the department has a lot of work to do.
The estimates of $2.7 billions were examined by the health
committee. There were no suggestions from the committee for a
change in the $2.7 billion allocated to the health department.
The accountability for the spending of those moneys of course
continues to be a subject of some debate.
The health department has come under scrutiny in two areas: one
by the auditor general and the other t through a series of fairly
well-publicized missteps on the part of the department. I would
just like to talk about those briefly.
First, last fall's auditor general's report had five chapters
relating to the health department. It had a number of criticisms
on how the department operated and a number of suggestions on how
the department could be improved.
One of the problems highlighted in the auditor general's report
was Health Canada's non-compliance with the Canada Health Act.
There was also a problem of information on the federal
government's total contribution to health care. The auditor
general in fact said that the federal government did not know its
exact contribution to health care because it was wrapped up in
the health and social transfers. The auditor general recommended
that the federal government find some way to identify exactly
what the federal government spent on health.
I suppose this would at least be helpful in election campaigns
when the federal and provincial governments are running competing
ads as to who pays what and how much. My hon. colleague who just
spoke mentioned some of those issues as well.
2035
The auditor general was also concerned about research and
development. The minister suggested, and was very proud of the
fact and well we should be, that the funding for research and
development was growing and that it was scheduled to double.
However the auditor general said that the collection criteria and
evaluation for projects to be funded by government research money
were not consistently applied and suggested that they needed to
be worked on.
The auditor general also looked at first nations' health and
found that although he had given a pretty bad report card to the
federal government on its handling of first nations' health in
1997, he found that in the year 2000 the department had “not
made sufficient progress to correct the deficiencies in any of
the programs under review”. He recommended again a sustained
effort to implement his recommendations. We have not seen a lot
of improvement over the last three years.
Of course first nations' health has been a serious concern for
our country. All of us feel that the federal government is
certainly letting down first nations people in this very critical
and important area. We could speak for 20 minutes just on the
problems with first nations' health, its mismanagement and the
problems there, but time does not permit.
The auditor general also reviewed federal health and safety
regulation programs. There were concerns about the need for
reliable risk assessment and sufficient allocation of financial
and human resources.
With respect to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the auditor
general found that it had not properly resourced its food
inspection programs based on risk, that actual levels of
inspection were lower than expected in some cases and that the
department lacked important information on the incidence of food
borne illness in humans. This was hardly reassuring in light of
the fact that there have been concerns about certain food related
illnesses that could affect our population.
The auditor general also looked at the regulatory regime of
biologics. This is something that the committee is studying as
we speak, and I believe that study is going ahead well. However
the auditor general emphasized the need for the department to
develop clear criteria in determining which approach would be
appropriate for a given situation as far as regulating and
supporting the work of the new biotechnology industry.
It is important that parliamentarians carry out their duty to
provide oversight on the spending and administration of a great
deal of money. In the case of the health department, that
amounts to $2.7 billion each and every year. That is a lot of
money. Since the government's total budget is well over $150
billion, it is important that parliamentarians do not just
sleepwalk their way into approving these estimates.
However, in the nearly eight years that I have sat in the House
as a parliamentarian, I have not seen one single line of any
estimate changed in any way by the House of Commons.
2040
Either it suggests that the officials of each and every
government department, and there are many, are pretty much
infallible in their allocation and administration of these
billions of dollars, or it suggests that the House is somewhat
remiss in not being more involved and more proactive in the
oversight of the administration of the spending of these moneys.
I cannot imagine very many democracies where members have this
kind of responsibility. For eight years, and I assume it has
been even longer although I do not know because I have only been
here for eight years, not one budgetary line of a single
department has been altered, improved or changed made by 301
members of parliament.
My first response to that observation is that we need to do a
better job in overseeing the administration and spending of this
money, particularly when we see in practical terms the
administration falling short of some requirements that were made
clear by the auditor general.
There are deficiencies in our health system. We see it in
mercury levels in fish, in approval of drugs, in water safety and
a whole bunch of areas where Canadians expect some protection and
help. When we see deficiencies we need to look at the allocation
of moneys to correct those deficiencies rather than just hoping
they will happen.
As we look at the estimates I suggest that we need to do a
better job. There are things that we could do to better allocate
funds than the way they are allocated today.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member noted that the auditor general had indicated some
concern about the amount of moneys transferred to the provinces.
The member knows very well some of the mechanics that it goes
through.
I am concerned as well that the combination of tax points and
cash transfers are relative to specific computations. The
provinces do not colour code dollars. They receive a bulk
transfer and what they spend it on is in their domain. That is a
matter of concern because the federal government has to be the
protector of the Canada Health Act which has five principles:
universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and
publicly funded.
The member raised a very good point with regard to the estimates
process. She indicated that the health committee had reviewed
the estimates with officials and that no recommendations were
made. Having been on the health committee and having served on
other committees, I know how difficult the process is because it
is a very specialized area of activity.
Would the member care to comment on a suggestion that has been
made as part of the modernization of parliament that the review
of estimates process be consolidated into one committee? This
committee would be composed of people who were specifically
interested and had the background, training and interest to
review estimates. The main standing committee could then shift
its emphasis to a review of the planning and priorities area
which is more generally of interest to members of the Standing
Committee on Health.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, with respect to money
to the provinces, the auditor general's concern was not that the
federal government sent money to the provinces or that the money
then became the domain of the provinces, but that the federal
government was unable, with any certainty, to indicate the amount
of money it actually contributed to the health care program.
He felt it was important for that to be quantified, and for
obvious reasons, then there could be debates on whether it was
sufficient, on how it was being spent or on any of those things.
2045
There also has to be some accountability. If the federal
government wants to hold itself out as the guardian of the Canada
Health Act, then it needs to have some guarding capability and
some accountability measures. An example of that would be the $1
billion being spent on new equipment, which the minister just
mentioned. When asked about whether that money was actually
spent on new equipment or whether provinces were simply using it
to buy equipment they had already ordered, therefore being of no
net advantage to patients or to citizens, all he could say was
that the government was working on a report card from the
provinces.
A shell game seems to be going on. The government says that it
is guarding the act and giving out all the money but when we ask
how much and how it is being spent, it passes the buck by saying
that the money is going to the provinces. It cannot be both
ways. Either there is a guardianship and some actual investment,
which means that it can show something for its investment, or it
is simply a loose arrangement and nobody knows the results of the
investment. We need to be honest and not try to either claim
credit or assign blame.
The other item is this idea of a review of estimates committee.
I hate to agree with the member opposite, because it goes against
the grain a little bit in this place, but on first blush it seems
to be a very sensible suggestion for about three reasons.
First, not all of us are bean counter types. I know my hon.
colleague is a very well respected and competent chartered
accountant, so I use the term bean counter types in the most
positive and complimentary sense. It is true that some people
have those sorts of skills while others do not. Some people
attend Harvard and others attend MIT.
Second, there is some coherence and consistency in attacking the
estimates rather than having a kind of hit and miss depending on
the time, the commitment and the agenda of a particular
committee. All the estimates would presumably be given the same
level of scrutiny.
Third, we could then hold someone's feet to the fire. Instead
of saying that none of the committees really came up with much,
we could look at the review of estimates committee and ask why
everything was kind of waved through without so much as a
critique.
I concur with my hon. colleague that it would be a very good
proposal to look at. Unless someone educates me better, I will
be supporting that.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary—Nose Hill makes the
important link between the estimates we are debating tonight,
which deals with the Department of Health, and various reports by
the auditor general relating to activities pursuant to Health
Canada.
The question I would like to ask concerns the indepth
investigations by the auditor general on the safety of our food
supply in Canada today. The member will know that the auditor
general has been fairly critical about both the Health Protection
Branch and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in not
appropriately resourcing their programs to ensure the
precautionary principle is applied at all times.
In the last few days we have heard concerns raised about mercury
in fish, mad cow disease, salmonella and other major issues.
Would the member support the idea of more money being taken from
the surplus and being put into the Health Protection Branch to
ensure adequate resourcing and an independent science capacity so
that all attempts necessary to protect Canadians at risk in terms
of the food supply can be taken?
2050
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, the answer is
obviously yes. Canadians trust us and our government departments
to protect their interests. They are buying food with confidence
because they believe we know what we are doing. If there is a
deficiency to any extent in protecting the interests of
Canadians, particularly with respect to the safety of the food on
their supermarket shelves, then we need to fix it.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is really a privilege and an honour to be able to
speak this evening to the main estimates on health. I have been
involved in the health committee since I have been a member,
which is a short time, but I have come to understand some of the
problems and complexities of the system from being involved in it
quite a while before that.
I am really taken by what I am hearing this evening,
particularly from the Minister of Health with regard to the state
of the health of our country. When I really assess what is going
on in health, a very rosy picture is being painted, but clearly
all is not well in the state of our health care in Canada.
Almost every day we can pick up a news report that shows
disturbing problems that are happening. Some of them were just
mentioned by the hon. member: mad cow disease, problems with our
food inspection agency and the fears we have about some of our
food.
Almost every day we can pick up something that will give us an
example of the problems. Yesterday there was a report dealing
with orthopedics and arthritis care. The average waiting time
for hip and knee replacement surgeries in this country is six
months, while some must wait well over a year. In fact I had a
lady in my office yesterday, who is well known by many of the
members in this place, who has been waiting for a year for knee
surgery and now has to wait another 15 months.
All is not well. The reason for some of the shortages is that
there is an obvious shortage of manpower in this area. One
hundred and fifty orthopedic surgeons are required to supply the
need that we have today, and that is without taking into account
the demographics of our society. It takes 10 years to train a
new orthopedic surgeon, so we can understand the dilemma that we
are in and that it has not happened overnight. We are in serious
problems with regard to human resources in health care.
I was a little alarmed when the minister suggested that all we
needed to do was to put a few more dollars into health research
and that would attract the best and the brightest minds to our
health care system which would sustain the system over the long
haul. I do believe that is true and I do not think Canadians are
buying that as well.
Increasingly, Canadians are wondering if the medicare system
will be there for them when they really need it. These hard
questions are being asked about the long term sustainability of
the system. We talked about some of the problems: the long
waiting lists, the shortage of doctors and nurses and the
obsolete equipment. We talked about the numbers of dollars that
are going into the equipment, $500 million up to April 1 and then
another $500 million.
When I talk to radiologists they say that none of this equipment
is getting into their hospitals. They are using equipment that
has to be taped up with duct tape. I have farmed for many years
and I know the value of a good roll of duct tape, but I do not
believe that it should be used on our medical equipment. They
are telling me that they have to move switches up and down
repeatedly before some of the archaic equipment can be turned on.
Third world countries will not even accept some of this stuff.
Suggesting that we do not have a problem and that we do not have
a crisis is putting our heads in the sand.
Dr. Peter Barrett, the outgoing president of the Canadian
Medical Association, stated:
The serious problems facing medicare today can be labelled a
health care crisis. For patients waiting for health care
services, it is a personal crisis. Doctors and nurses on the
front lines know it is a crisis.
It will increasingly become more of a crisis as the weight of
the demographic age of the baby boomers hits the system.
As I said earlier, this did not happen overnight. The removal
of the dollars in the mid-nineties has caused major problems that
are now coming to bear upon a system that has been neglected for
far too long. It is time we paid some attention to this because
our health care system is about to pay the price for some of that
neglect.
2055
The problems with the federal government's overall leadership
and the funding of health care in the country are mirrored by a
number of problems within Health Canada itself. A more direct
subject of debate could be added, as several problems within
Health Canada have come to light just in the time that I have
been in parliament or as more light has recently been shed on the
problems.
Health Canada has mismanaged funding with regard to the Inuit.
Aboriginal people are repeatedly highlighted in the auditor
general's report. There are problems with the Virginia Fontaine
Addictions Foundation that raise serious questions. We have
raised this in the House. There are many problems with
overprescription of drugs within our aboriginal communities,
overprescriptions from which people have died.
The health minister talked about drugs. Many problems have also
arisen from the diet drug Prepulsid. There was the Vanessa Young
inquest. Sixty-nine recommendations came out of that inquest.
The minister suggested in the House that he would implement all
of them. It is definitely an acknowledgement that we have a
problem in the system when every one of the recommendations will
be looked at or implemented. That is what he said, so obviously
there is a problem related to drugs and the process within Health
Canada itself.
I could go on with a number of problems but I do not have much
time so I will move on to another area of federal incompetence.
It has to do with the compensation for hepatitis C victims. We
know about the tainted blood. Members mentioned it earlier. We
know that it is a major problem. We know that almost 50% of the
money is left over and yet there are thousands of patients who
were infected and who have not been able to access the funding
for hepatitis C victims. They really need that funding.
However, we need to look beyond the problems. The hon. member
across the way suggested that there are some problems but that
solutions are what is needed. I would like to ask him and the
entire House to start thinking outside the box when it comes to
health care, because arguably we have some very serious problems.
Just the introduction of the Romanow report is an acknowledgement
that hopefully we will start to think about some of the
solutions.
First let us talk about accountability within the system. If I
asked Canadians who they think is looking after the dollars in
the health care system now they could not tell me. I am saying
to Canadians right now that they could not tell me. It is not
the politicians, I can tell Canadians that, and it is not the
regional authorities in most of our provinces because I have been
there. They deal with the health care dollars within their global
budgets, or the funding formulas and access to them.
However, we have some blank cheques in the system and until we
address them the system will never be able to sustain itself over
the next 40 years because of the baby boomers and the technology
that is coming along. I am saying that we need to look at the
accountability of both users and providers within the system. We
need to stop playing games with the health care dollars that are
so precious and dear and that the taxpayers of the country work
hard to earn.
It is very important that we acknowledge what we can do about
accountability by having users and providers more accountable. I
hope I get a question or two on that because I will not have time
to explain it as I want to get on to my other idea, which is
something that that I think is very imperative. We have talked
about it since the 1970s but have just paid lip service to it. It
is the area of health care prevention and promotion, because
health is much more than health care. We have been crisis
managing health care in the country for so many years that we
have to absolutely stop doing it or we will never sustain it.
2100
In the long run we have to think outside the box and start
asking ourselves questions. When we have an epidemic of obese
students within our educational system, why are we not talking to
the educators of this country? Why are we not talking to them
with regard to solving some of the problems that are going to hit
the system because of that?
This was talked about with regard to the tobacco industry. We
know that if we can stop teenagers from smoking, if we can stop
them before the age of 20, we will win the battle against tobacco
addiction. Why are we not talking to them?
We know that the number one reason we hospitalize people in this
country is mental illness. Why are we not talking to industry
and thinking outside the box?
In closing, I would like to say that we do have a problem in
health care. We can come up with some solutions if we work
together. I would offer my assistance in doing that.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank
the member opposite for outlining a number of points.
The hon. member wanted to be asked a question on accountability.
I will ask the question so that the member can elaborate further
on the blank cheque to the provinces. In what ways could we make
the provinces accountable or have them monitor health care? That
is a good question. I would like to hear more of the member's
suggestions.
Along with that, what does the member think in regard to the
accountability of passing on that spending? Various provinces
have passed on expenditures or transfers from the federal
government in various amounts. Various provinces spend different
proportions on health care. Some of the provinces will be in
very good shape soon, such as Alberta, which I think will be out
of debt soon.
Last, I am glad the member mentioned the point of recruitment.
It is a very important point. I was glad to hear the minister
mention some plans in that respect. However, I know the Alliance
is interested in taxes and I am curious about something. Does
the member think that because we have made the largest tax cut in
Canadian history, although of course it could always be more, it
will help keep health care professionals in Canada?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
his questions. This gives me an opportunity to explain a little
more about what I did not have time for in my presentation.
With regard to accountability, I think we miss the boat when we
get bogged down by the question of whose jurisdiction it is, of
whether it is a federal or provincial jurisdiction and whether
the dollars are federal or provincial dollars. We have to
understand that they are all taxpayer dollars from taxes paid by
Canadians. That is what is so critical about accountability.
Accountability does not come with that.
Accountability comes when we move Canadians, the users of the
system whose hard earned dollars pay for a system of health care
that they are so proud of, closer to the system and give them the
opportunity, the education and the understanding to be able to
access the system appropriately and to feel accountable to it. I
believe that every time they access services they should have an
account of what is paid on their behalf. The paradigm would
suddenly shift. Instead of thinking that health care is just
there and they can use it without any responsibility, they would
then have an understanding of who is using it. Something else
would happen: doctors will start treating patients a lot
differently when they know that the patients know exactly what is
being paid on their behalf.
I think that is how we start bringing accountability into the
system. That could be a federal jurisdiction because it is a
broad plank and a broad idea.
We will not solve health care problems with one silver bullet.
If we thought one silver bullet would do it we would have used it
a long time ago. We would have fired that bullet.
We have to start with a broad plank and then start building from
there. That is how to bring accountability into the system.
In regard to taxes, we absolutely need to lower the taxes to
hopefully give ourselves a little more competitiveness so that
hard earned dollars go farther in this country. We have put a
sign up that Canada is open for business, but will it solve the
problem of the brain drain of our professionals going south? It
is maybe a step in the right direction, but we have to do a lot
more.
We make a fatal error in Canada with our human resources by not
negotiating when physicians are going through the educational
system. That is when they need our help. That is when they are
vulnerable. We should negotiate then as to exactly where they
will come out and serve, not after they get a degree. Any head
of business will tell us that negotiations happen when both sides
need each other, not when one side does things in isolation or
afterwards. The brain drain is a big problem. Human resources
is one of the major problems and it will not be solved overnight.
2105
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a very quick question for my colleague in the
Alliance Party.
Where does his party stand on some of the controversial issues
such as deterrent fees and user fees? What role should the
federal government take to make sure those things do not happen
in Canada? Is he in favour of national standards for health care
whereby we are treated the same from coast to coast to coast?
He is from Alberta where there was the experience of bill 11 and
all the protests in his province. It would be interesting to
know where he stands on some of those issues.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Madam Speaker, I do not think I can
answer that in one minute. It is very important.
I think we get suckered into a false debate in the country when
there is a private-public debate. We have been suckered into
that debate throughout the country. The member used the example
of Alberta and bill 11. That is exactly what Alberta
experienced. It ended up being a neutered bill. That is not the
solution.
Regarding the absolute phobia about user fees, I do not think we
have to go to user fees. I think we need to open up the books
and bring Canadians closer to the system. The member mentioned
user fees in a glib way and I am a little cautious about that. If
user fees or some other incentives become necessary, I think
Canadians will tell us. I do not thing it is something we should
debate right now. We have to go plank by plank initially. Those
are short answers and I could go on but my time is up.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from
Winnipeg North Centre who is the very eloquent spokesperson for
the New Democratic Party on all matters concerning health care. I
would not want to take more than half the time so that she has a
chance to put our position on the record.
This is a very important debate we are having here this evening.
I suppose there is nothing that defines us as Canadians in terms
of our collective character and differentiates us from the
Americans more than our national health care program. Canadians,
when asked what they are proud of about Canada, will say many
things but many of them point to health care and public health
care is a very important part of that.
I want to say at the outset that I am very proud of the role my
party historically played in terms of getting health care into
the country. I remember the debates when I was a teenager. At
that time there was the great doctors' strike in 1961 in
Saskatchewan when health care came in. The premier at the time
was the CCF premier, Woodrow Lloyd. The CCF of course was the
predecessor of the New Democratic Party, the NDP. I remember the
fear among a lot of people at that time when all the doctors in
the province went on strike.
I remember the then leader of the opposition, Ross Thatcher,
protesting that the legislature was not called back to deal with
the issue. He actually kicked the doors of the legislature. In
the political history of our province there is a very famous
picture of the Liberal leader, who I would say was a very
conservative Liberal leader, kicking the doors of the legislative
assembly.
However, that was really the opening of the floodgates for
national health care in the country. Not long after that we had
the appointment by prime minister John Diefenbaker of the Hall
commission under Emmett Hall. It recommended a national health
care program based upon the Saskatchewan model, which was a
publicly administered, single payer type of system in the
province of Saskatchewan.
Under the prime ministership of Lester B. Pearson, and under
Paul Martin Sr., who was a minister at that time, and through the
pressure of Tommy Douglas and the NDP caucus in the House of
Commons at that time, we finally got national medicare in the
mid-1960s in Canada.
The Liberal Party first promised national medicare back in 1919.
It took from 1919 until the mid-1960s to actually become a
reality in the country. That is how slow these Liberals move, at
a snail's pace or like molasses in January. It was the prodding
and pushing and the role played by Saskatchewan that made this a
very popular idea right across the country.
Finally the time came when the political support was there and
the public opinion was there. The federal government finally
moved, under what was a very progressive Liberal government under
Lester B. Pearson, quite the contrary to what we have today.
Today we have the most conservative Liberal government in the
history of our country. I am sure we would all agree with that
if we compare it to the governments of Lester B. Pearson and
Pierre Trudeau.
In many ways this government is more conservative than Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney's Conservative government was between
1984 and 1993.
2110
In the mid-1960s we finally got medicare in this country. We
finally got a national program. We finally got a single payer
system in this country that is now the envy of many people around
the world.
What did the Liberal government do in its budget? In February
1995 it took an axe to medicare. It cut medicare and transfers
to the provinces. It cut them so radically that every province
in the country was suffering.
I am proud to say that the government of Roy Romanow, who is now
head of the commission on medicare, was the only provincial
government, contrary to what my friend in the Conservative Party
said a few minutes ago, that backfilled dollar for dollar the
loss of federal dollars from the provincial budget and the
provincial caucus to maintain what we had in our province of
Saskatchewan.
However, those cutbacks have hurt the system very severely. We
had the health care accord of September 11, 2000, right before
the election, which injected more federal money into health care,
but even under that accord we are still well behind where we
would have been if the cutbacks had not come in 1995.
Just three weeks ago we had a economic statement by the Minister
of Finance. In that economic statement he announced that we had
$15 billion in unexpected surplus in the country and that every
penny of that surplus was applied to the national debt. If we
had a system like some of the provinces do, where we had a
special fund set up into which this surplus money would go, then
those of us in parliament could have a national debate as to
where that money should be allocated.
If we had polled the Canadian people as to whether or not they
wanted all of that $15 billion put into the national debt or
whether they wanted some of that put into health care, education,
the farm crisis, infrastructure or the aboriginal problems in
this country, I am sure that the Canadian people would
overwhelmingly and massively have told us to spend a huge portion
of that on the health care and educational problems the ordinary
people of this country face. However, that did not happen. It
did not happen because that is not the priority of the government
across the way.
When it comes to debating the estimates, debating supply, it is
very important for us to remind the government and the ministers
across the way that they made a decision, first, to cut back
radically on health care, putting many strains on the system and
putting many parts of the country into crisis. Now, when we
have the funds to do better, when we have this $15 billion
surplus, the government chooses to put every single penny of that
surplus to paying down the national debt. That is on top of
announcing last fall before the election, in another economic
statement, that there would be tax cuts of $100 billion for the
Canadian people, many of those tax cuts helping wealthy people
and the big corporations of this country that do not need those
cuts.
Again, a large percentage of that money should have been spent
in health care and education and on the human deficit in this
country. In 1995 when those cutbacks were made, when people
fought against the deficit that had been run up, mainly by the
Tories, by accepting the cutbacks in the social programs, there
was the creation of a human deficit in Canada. Now that we have
some fiscal dividends it is the people of this country who should
reap some of those benefits through health care programs,
education and social services as we fight and combat this human
deficit.
The two biggest failures of the government across the way are
the environmental record of this country and the gap between the
rich and the poor, which is once again growing instead of
narrowing. A large part of that is due to the cutbacks in social
programs in Canada and health care is a very important one.
Where do we go from here? I think we have a very good system.
We have a very important system. We have a system that many
Americans would like to see emulated in that country. Some 40
million Americans are not covered by health care or medicare at
all. We have a system that is based on the concept of a single
payer, that is, the provincial governments, with the help of the
federal government, pay the health care bills in the country.
There is the system of public administration. In that system of
public administration we know there is some flexibility in terms
of some things being private.
Hospitals will sometimes privatize or contract out the food
service, the catering service, the laundry service or some other
services. However, it is important within that context that
everything be publicly administered.
2115
Unlike the member from the Canadian Alliance in Alberta, to me
this debate is not irrelevant in terms of public versus private.
It is extremely important that we keep a public system, a single
fare system and have it publicly administered on behalf of every
Canadian. If we do not, we will create a chequerboard health
care system with the richer provinces having a better system than
the poorer provinces. We could end up like some countries in the
world, such as the United States, where wealthier people, because
of the thickness of their pocketbooks, have access to a better
health system than the ordinary citizens.
It is extremely important that we keep that system publicly
administered in a single tier system for every Canadian.
We also have to develop a pharmacare program so that the price
of pharmaceutical goods and drugs is not a deterrent for people
when combating an illness. We also need a good home care
program. In both these cases the federal government should
provide some leadership.
I conclude by saying we have to maintain national standards for
home care, for daycare and pharmaceutical care. Within those
national standards we have to have the flexibility of the
administration of a system by each province that fits their
unique characteristics.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle has stood in the House before and talked about
this very negative option as he sees it, and that is paying down
the debt is not a realistic option.
We still have over $550 billion of debt. In 1995-96 the debt to
GDP ratio, that is the debt in relation to the size of the
economy, was about 71.2%. It is now around 55%. The norm would
be somewhere around 40% or thereabouts.
When we look at investing in social programs, the government
last September at the premiers conference invested some $21.4
billion in health care, post-secondary education and other social
programs, which was the largest single investment the government
ever made.
The $15 billion that automatically went toward paying down the
debt at the end of the last fiscal year was the surplus. The
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is a member of the finance
committee. I am sure he knows the procedure that whatever the
surplus is it goes to paying down the debt. That will save
taxpayers $2 billion a year in debt service charges. That will
mean more resources are freed up to invest in health care and
post-secondary education, to cut taxes and to invest in
innovation, training and skills development.
Why has the member such an aversion to paying down the debt? We
still have a debt in Canada of about $550 billion which is far
too high? Why is he so negative on paying it down?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my answer will be very
short. I have nothing against paying down the debt. The debt
has gone down from 71% of GDP to 55% of GDP, as the parliamentary
secretary said. It is going down very rapidly.
I am talking about balance. There will be a tax cut of $100
billion over five years. There will be $21 or $22 billion going
to health care and social services over five years, and a big
hunk of money going to the national debt.
If we look at any poll, Canadians have said overwhelmingly that
there is not a balance and that more money should go to health
care, education, social services, infrastructure and the farm
crisis. In other words, it should go into a people's agenda.
That is the only place where I differ from the parliamentary
secretary. It is a matter of priorities and balance.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, the member made mention in his address that the
government in the mid-nineties took an axe to the health care
portfolio. I made mention of that in my remarks as well. I also
made mention of some of the repercussions which we are suffering
now.
I think we concur on that and we have to guard against that ever
happening again. That is why we are suggesting we have a long
term plan for the finances of health care and that we have a
sustainable five year budget so that can never happens again.
2120
The member suggested that all we really need to save the health
care system is to throw more money at it. If that is not the
case and I misinterpreted that, exactly what would he see as some
of the solutions for health care?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I did not say that the
solution was to throw more money at it. We need more funding to
sustain the system and make sure it is equalized across the
country with national standards.
The Romanow commission is looking at ways of enhancing and
making medicare more cost effective and beneficial for the
Canadian people. There are efficiencies that I hope we can find
to put into the system. However throwing more money into the
system is not the answer, but we need enough money to make sure
they system is sustainable in terms of the hospitals, salaries
for doctors and nurses.
I think any independent analyst would say that the cutbacks
were just too severe in 1995. It pushed many of the provinces
deeper into debts and deficits. Many provinces closed hospitals
and cut back on their systems. I think the government went too
far at that particular time.
Part of the problem is extra federal funding, but part of the
problem is making sure we are more efficient in terms of
delivering a health care system.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle. He made some very good points. I believe
he feels as passionately about the health care system and about
making sure it is universal, acceptable and accessible for all
Canadians.
However, I would like to ask him a question with respect to Roy
Romanow, a pre-eminent Canadian who I believe was a brilliant
choice on behalf of the government. The Prime Minister of course
made that appointment, which I think stands in good stead for all
Canadians.
Was the member optimistic or pessimistic on Mr. Romanow's
appointment and what he would do in this very important study? It
is my understanding that he will cross Canada and consult with
stakeholders, Canadians and other interested parties on this very
important area. Before he answers I would like to say I am very
optimistic.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, Mr. Romanow has been a
friend of mine since 1967. I just spoke with him yesterday, and
I am sure he will do an excellent job and make a valuable
contribution like Mr. Emmett Hall did back in the 1960s.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have been trying to contain my feelings and save
up for this opportunity. Now there is only 10 minutes to put
over six months of concerns on the record.
I would like to focus on two areas pertaining to Health Canada.
There are two pillars of health care in the country today.
The first pillar is our national health insurance system which
is the envy of the world and a model that ensures access for all
citizens on a universal basis to accessible, quality health care
that is now facing serious decline and erosion.
The second pillar is our national health safety system which
emerged out of the thalidomide crisis in the 1950s and has served
Canadians well over the last several decades. It is also under
serious threat from underfunding and lack of leadership by the
government.
In both cases these pillars of medicare are crumbling. They are
crumbling because of Liberal government neglect, lack of
leadership by the present Minister of Health and a failure to
ensure that some allocation of funds from this budgetary year,
which is showing a $15 billion surplus, be allocated to those
very important cornerstones of Canadian public policy.
We are not only dealing with a lack of adequate resources and a
failure of the government to put a pittance of the $15 billion
surplus toward these important areas, we are also dealing with a
government that has failed to show leadership and provide
national standards and national direction in two fundamental
issues facing Canadians today.
2125
The minister in his comments this evening was quick to point out
with some pride the $21.1 billion contribution by the federal
government following the September 11, 2000 accord for health
care. However, the minister failed to point out that we are
talking about $21.1 billion spread out over five years to cover
health, education and social services. We are talking about a
restoration of funds by the federal government to bring us up to
1994 levels which ensures that the federal government is involved
to the tune of 15%, a long way from the 50:50 division that
existed in the past for medicare.
Not only is the government failing to ensure our medicare model
is sustained and supported, it is contributing to the erosion of
that system and allowing, through its passive response and
inaction, the slide toward privatization and yes, two tier health
care.
The minister this evening stood in the House and tried to
suggest he was making great progress by announcing a performance
report, which would come into effect in the year 2002, and a
citizens council on quality health care. These are two ideas
which we will not sneeze at. They are important contributions to
the debate, but they do not address the need for action. They do
not address the concerns raised by the Canadian Federation of
Nurses Unions when this organization pointed out the government
promised, with the September accord, to deal with the nursing
shortage.
The government promised to deal with the drug pricing problems.
It promised to deal with home care, and there has been no action.
It has failed to address the Canadian Nurses Association
recommendation for some contribution toward a recruitment
strategy to deal with the crisis that is looming for all
Canadians and the fact that at this rate we are in all likelihood
going to face a shortage of 113,000 nurses by the year 2011.
The government has failed to deal with the suggestions from the
Canadian Health Care Association that called upon the government
in March of this year to allocate significant new resources to
ensure we dealt with the shortfall of health care professionals
and help provide the kind of quality care Canadians needed and
deserved.
The government has not deal with the recommendations of the
Canadian Medical Association that presented to the government a
comprehensive document entitled “Looking at the Future of
Health, Health Care and Medicine”.
The government has not dealt with the serious problems facing
Canadians in terms of accessing necessary medications. It has
not dealt with the recent report in March of this year by the
Canadian Institute for Health Information which pointed out that
almost six million Canadians had inadequate insurance for
prescription drugs, or that 10% of the population had no drug
insurance at all and another 10% were under insured.
The minister has not dealt with the concerns that are at the
root of our erosion of medicare and will not commit to fulfilling
promises made long ago to have a national home care plan, a
national pharmacare plan and a major reform at the primary care
level.
We need resources now to ensure that we can sustain medicare and
reform it in terms of the community based preventative health
care model we are talking about.
The second pillar pertains to health protection.
We raised serious questions about mad cow disease in the House
this week. The answer from the minister was appalling and needs
to be addressed.
I would like to point out that on April 4, we asked questions of
Health Canada officials pertaining to mad cow disease.
Specifically, I asked if it was possible that deer and elk killed
on our highways were slaughtered, rendered and entered into the
feed that went to live animals? Dr. André Gravel said there was
a remote chance. I also asked if it was possible, under present
regulations, for cow blood to actually get into the feed that
went to live animals. Dr. Gravel said yes.
The minister appeared before the health committee on April 26
and pretended or claimed that he knew nothing about that and said
that they were taking all necessary precautions. Yesterday in
the House, the minister stood and said to all Canadians that
Canada was BSE free and that they were taking all precautions.
That is not the case. The minister has not put all the facts
before the Canadian public. He is not taking the necessary
precautionary steps to ensure Canadians are protected from the
very serious threat of mad cow disease or, if I can refer also to
issues raised previously, mercury in fish, or salmonella
poisoning or the uncertainty around genetically modified
organisms in our food supply today.
2130
The government has hacked and slashed our health protection
branch starting in 1997 under the present Minister of Health. It
has not fully restored our scientific capacity. It has not
ensured that we have independent research. It has not taken
steps to protect Canadians in all instances in terms of our food
supply, the drugs Canadians need or any other area for that
matter.
I raise all this not to engage in fearmongering as the
government is so wont to classify it. I raise it because if we
do not take steps now to deal with these threats we will pay a
price down the road. We will pay a price in terms of human
health and in terms of our agricultural industry. This is about
protecting our farmers and the health of consumers. It is about
trying to convince the government to act now before it is too
late.
It is reprehensible for the Minister of Health to stand whenever
he is posed a question and suggest that the opposition does not
know what it is talking about, that it does not have all the
facts and that everything is just A-okay. We know from many
reports, especially the 3,000 page report just released by the
minister's own departmental officials, about the problems of BSE
and the potential threat of mad cow disease.
This is a serious, comprehensive study which suggests we do not
know the incubation period for transmission of the pathogen and
do not know the source of the problem. We do not know that cow's
blood, gelatine or other animal products which are put into feed
and then fed to live animals will not transmit the disease to
human beings.
We are asking the government to look at this serious issue, take
all precautionary steps and ensure we have regulations in place
that protect Canadians at all costs. We are asking the minister
to look beyond the inadequate advice he is getting from his own
departmental officials and look to the world, to the European
Union and to other countries that are now realizing the
importance of taking all necessary steps to protect the food
supply. We must ensure the health of Canadians is not
threatened.
The two pillars of Canada's health care system, universal health
insurance and our nationally acclaimed health safety system, have
held the country in good stead. They have ensured Canadians have
access to quality care and have protected Canadians against the
worst threats in terms of tainted food, problematic drugs or
unsafe water.
Surely that is the most basic thing the government can do.
Surely this is the time and the opportunity for the government to
invest a portion, just a portion, of the $15 billion surplus into
quality health care and into the health, well-being and future of
our citizens.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I would like to make
a comment, if hon. members will indulge me. We are dealing with
estimates today.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
understand your point, but an evening debate like this is a time
when members can express themselves quite broadly and eloquently
and can be more thoughtful than is often the case in the
hurly-burly of normal debate.
I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say
and what her colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle had to say. It
seems to me we live in a confederation. The strength of a
confederation is that we have jurisdictions where all sorts of
things can be tried. If they are no good, others can learn and
do not need to repeat the experiment. If they are good they can
be applied by the whole country.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle gave the rightly famous
example of Saskatchewan developing a health care system which
proved to be good for the whole country. Similarly the federal
government, in addition to taking ideas from the jurisdictions,
can have ideas of its own and hopefully persuade the provinces to
go along.
It seems to me the thing works well when it is clearly federal
jurisdiction and the federal government has the wherewithal and
the jurisdiction to do something. For example, it was this
government that put every school, every kindergarten, on the
Internet through the SchoolNet program. The provinces
essentially were not involved.
In the case of Saskatchewan and health care, the province
developed something and the Liberal government of the day saw it
was possible. The other provinces realized it was possible and
that they could implement it.
2135
I will give some other examples. I think the member would agree
that the child tax benefit is a remarkable program of the
government and yet it has been clawed back, for example in my own
province of Ontario, from the poorest children and families. The
federal government appears able to do nothing about it.
The 2000 research chairs is an extraordinary program. No
jurisdiction has a fraction of the number of research chairs we
have. We discovered that universities sometimes cannot afford
the research chairs because they are not getting the funds
through the CHST or from the provinces to support them.
The Canada student loan program has been greatly improved. The
millennium scholarship program is 95% income related and deals
directly with student loans, yet most provinces with the
exception of two are raising tuition fees.
Could my colleague comment on that? Where jurisdiction is
clearly provincial or federal, things are very simple. In the
most common cases jurisdiction is less simple. What are her
thoughts with respect to that and health care which is the main
topic of her remarks?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I would like to
indicate that I was not trying to steer the debate in any
direction. Members are free to express themselves freely.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I know that. I
know that you know I was talking about estimates and the budget
and the fact that the government should have considered
allocating a portion of the $15 billion surplus to health care to
meet some of the critical issues I outlined in my remarks today.
I appreciate the very important question from the Liberal member
across the away about innovations by the federal government that
should be supported. I want him to know that the Liberal
government has come forward with good ideas in a number of
instances. I have indicated tonight that we do not quarrel with
the idea of performance reports or a citizens' council dealing
with quality health care. These are important ideas that should
be advanced.
However I am concerned about where the government stops in terms
of concrete action to deal with serious problems. I am concerned
about its failure to keep promises pertaining to such basic
issues as access to reasonably priced drugs, a universally
accessible home care program and major reforms to primary health
care. These are all issues the government said it would be
innovative on but has failed to address.
The member raised the important issue of split jurisdiction and
the problem of trying to advance these issues in the context of
different agendas at the federal-provincial level. I recognize
that point. However in terms of health care we are dealing with
a willingness on the part of many provincial governments to make
progress in the areas of pharmacare and home care. That is the
case with my home province of Manitoba.
There has been a tremendous resistance or lack of courage by the
federal government to take up and advance these issues in
collaboration with provinces that are willing to co-operate. The
example of innovation is relevant to the debate because Manitoba
offers, and the Minister of Health knows this, model programs in
the areas of pharmacare and home care.
Manitoba pioneered those ideas many years ago and they ought to
be replicated across Canada. However that would take federal
leadership and it would take money. Yes, it would take some of
the budgetary surplus available to us today. It would also take
a minister who is prepared to do battle if necessary with less
than co-operative provinces. There is an interest that the
present Minister of Health could tap into. He could move
expeditiously on some of the key issues pertaining to the reform
and renewal of medicare.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would first point out that I am sharing my time with
the member for Mississauga South. I am happy to contribute to
the debate this evening.
Having worked for over 25 years as a surgeon in a rural
community in New Brunswick, having worked in a hospital setting
and with community health services for all those years, having
had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Health
with government and opposition colleagues, whom I got to know and
appreciate, I must say I have the health of all Canadians at
heart.
2140
This is why I am opposed to Motion No. 1, which questions Health
Canada's Vote 5 on the department's subsidies and contributions.
Is this opposition to the motion a way of saying that the
approach to achieving the government's objective regarding health
is not laudable? Nothing could be further from the truth.
Some members in this House like to claim that the Government of
Canada is out of touch with the public that it serves. They like
to suggest that the government is disconnected from the real
needs of Canadians. This is far from the reality, and in more
ways than one.
One of the most appropriate ways to demonstrate that we care
about the health of Canadians is to look at the subsidies and
contributions that Health Canada gives to community organizations
and to its partners, the provincial and territorial governments.
These funds meet real needs in the health sector and they allow
us to explore new avenues to strengthen our health system.
Currently, subsidies and contributions are given to partners that
do productive work in this country.
The basic principle is that our government is taking measures
regarding a large number of priorities in health, priorities that
Canadians feel are important.
Our government is taking measures to provide to first nations
and Inuit communities sustainable programs and health services
that take into account the disparities and the threat of disease,
so they can enjoy a level of health that is comparable to
that of other Canadians.
Our government is taking measures to improve prenatal health and
ensure that young children have the best possible start in life.
Our government is taking measures to help older children and
teenagers who are pressured by their peers to smoke or to use
drugs or alcohol.
Our government is taking measures regarding a number of
priorities in community health that impact on people of all ages.
Our government is working to meet the needs of seniors.
However, our government knows that all these concerns need not
be tackled strictly within government. The fact is that there
are many groups already working in these areas. There are ways
that we can work with the provincial and territorial governments.
There are many organizations which are very familiar with their
communities and which have the necessary expertise to deliver
effective programs and services.
Our grants and contributions are investments in partnerships and
success. I will, if I may, give a few examples of what I am
saying.
First, there is the alcohol and drug treatment and
rehabilitation program, or ADTR. This is a longstanding program
designed to reduce the harm caused, as we all know, by alcohol
and other drug abuse to individuals, to families and to
communities.
Through this program, Health Canada provides funding to the
provinces and territories in order to help them improve
accessibility to effective alcohol and drug treatment and rehab
programs. These governments use these funds to support direct
treatment and rehab programs for persons with substance abuse
problems, and to provide training to health professionals, as
well as services in schools, rapid screening, and counselling.
Naturally, if we accept this opposition to the motion, the
provinces and territories will no longer receive support for
ADTR. The funding will no longer be there.
Then there are the programs in support of science, which is
essential to an understanding of health risks. It is crucial to
policy choices that will enhance Canadians' health. All of these
are supported by research funding.
Let us take, for instance, research into atmospheric pollution
in our cities. All of us realize that poor quality air is bad
for people, but we need to know which components in air pollution
are the most harmful.
2145
We need to know whether this situation presents more risks for
certain members of society such as children or seniors. With
that information, governments, communities and businesses can
make informed choices.
Health Canada funds research activities at the University of
Ottawa in these fields. This budget category is what funds that
research. These are areas of research which ought to make it
possible to improve the rules and policies that impact on
atmospheric pollution and to provide healthier air to the
population of our cities.
In many other cases, we are pursuing broad initiatives in which
our subsidies and contributions are combined to fulfil major
commitments made to Canadians. Allow me to give an example.
Just last week, the government announced new support for eight
health initiatives in rural British Columbia. This was a global
announcement on subsidies and contributions. For example, some
local and regional projects will benefit from funds provided
through the HIV/AIDS strategy to target problems such as the care
and treatment for people infected with the HIV/AIDS virus, or to
prevent the spreading of the HIV/AIDS virus in these communities.
Some projects will benefit from the support provided under the
community action program for children. We co-manage this program
with the provincial and territorial governments. This is another
example of federal-provincial co-operation through subsidies and
contributions. And this co-operation will provide support for
community programs and services that help children up to six
years of age get a good start in life, be ready for school and
improve their chances of having a healthy adult life.
There are already close to 450 projects across Canada under the
community action program for children. Together, these projects
are valued at more than $50 million. If the House accepts the
motion, this will all come to an end.
I will conclude by pointing out that a large number of subsidies
and contributions help shape Canada's future health system. The
funding provided under that vote will be used for a number of
telehealth initiatives across Canada, including in Quebec,
Ontario, Atlantic Canada, western Canada and the north.
These projects serve as testing grounds for ideas on such
matters as how health care organizations can exchange records on
patients securely and effectively and on how to give people in
remote regions access to the expertise available in the health
care centres of our major cities.
We are even trying ways to link people receiving home care with
organizations providing community services to enable them to use
these technologies at home.
Allow me to give an example of the outreach project in
Ontario. This project, which is being run in London, involves
exploring a way to meet the need for psychiatric services in
poorly served regions in southwest and northern Ontario. It will
be achieved by linking four psychiatric centres to as many as 100
locations in the cities and communities of the first nations, by
way of a video conferencing system. Examples of this sort are
popping up all over Canada.
The fact is that subsidies and contributions are an essential
part of the government's strategy to improve the health of
Canadians. They enable us to support local organizations that
share our commitment to a healthy childhood. They enable us to
support major research efforts. They enable us to keep up with
the new millennium.
This funding deserves the support of the House.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I
listened with some interest to the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche speak on the merits of the government and
what it has done as a health care provider.
Since he is a member of the government I certainly understand
that he would want to sing the merits of the government, but I
just do not understand how he is able to do that.
2150
Certainly I do not expect that the health care provided in his
riding is much better than the health care provided in my riding
of South Shore. In the village of New Ross where I live, we are
40 or so kilometres from the nearest doctor. People who cut
themselves or get their hand caught in a piece of equipment have
to hold it together as best they can until they can get to a
doctor. There is certainly none in the community. There was
when I grew up there. There was always a doctor there, but there
are no doctors in rural Canada.
Members should not stand there and sing the praises of the
government and what it has done to help rural Canadians and
provide health care because it is just not there.
There is a question that I actually do want to raise now that
members have finished singing the praises of the government. Now
that they have finished, they can answer a question on a specific
item. The item is one that was brought up earlier. It is a
serious potential health hazard and I would go so far as to say
that it is a serious health hazard now. It is bovine spongiform
encephalopathy or BSE.
This is the hidden health care risk that Canadians face and that
the government in particular does not want to recognize. It does
not want to recognize the big issues and the real problems that
it could face. This is the hidden health care risk. It is out
there behind the scenes and we do not know just how quickly it is
going to rear its ugly head.
We have chronic wasting disease in deer and elk. We have BSE
potentially being spread from blood product, from beef and sheep
and animal products that have not been prepared properly. We
expect that it will be just as big an issue in Canada as it was
in Britain unless the government is willing to be proactive and
do something about it in a very proactive way, take a risk, spend
some money, find out what the problem is and do something about
it to protect our health care and protect our agriculture
industry in Canada.
What will the government do about it? The government has done
nothing so far.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
sharing his concerns. They are concerns I have as well, even if
I sit on the government side. Furthermore, this is one of the
reasons I ran for office. I will answer the second part of the
question and come back to the first part later.
With respect to BSE, the human form of which is known as
Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, this is a disease which has been known
about for quite some time already. The problem right now is
knowing whether so-called mad cow disease is the same as
Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. How is this disease transmitted? The
answer is still not known.
I am very happy when I see our government investing substantial
amounts in research and development to work on this very sort of
problem.
As for doctors in the regions, it is true that there is a
problem. Sometimes, I have a lot of trouble understanding, when
I see that federal transfer payments to my province are not put
immediately into health care. We do not know why.
I agree with the earlier speakers who said that the provinces
must be truly responsible. The provinces must have the strength
of their convictions and tell us what they are doing with the
money that the federal government is transferring to them. If
they cannot do that, we should look after the health
care system for all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I have only a couple of comments after listening to the
self serving drivel put forth by the Minister of Health and the
member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
There are two points I want to talk about. He talks about
helping with grants and contributions to deal with substance
abuse. Let me tell the hon. member about substance abuse. Last
week we dealt with the public accounts. A lady by the name of
Lorraine Stonechild was at the public accounts committee telling
us how her brother died of a drug overdose because he was given
300 prescriptions in one year, all paid for by Health Canada.
Each and every one was paid for by Health Canada. It killed him
because there is no control on Health Canada in how they
distribute drugs, and substance abuse is rampant in the first
nations because of it.
2155
The member talked about air quality, but what about ground
quality such as the Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia? The people
are demanding that the government move them out of there because
the place is making them sick, and Health Canada is doing next to
nothing.
When will the government look after the first nations of the
country? When will the government look after the people of
Sydney, Nova Scotia? They deserve an answer to what the
government and Health Canada are doing because they are killing
them.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Speaker, with regard to the issue of
drug overdose, I agree that there are problems. We often point a
finger at the problem, but there are also many positive things
about the health system.
A very important reason to invest in telecommunication
technology to allow the various stakeholders in health to share
information is precisely to try to prevent such unfortunate
incidents.
As for the issue of ambient air, we should invest in
this area. I would be dishonest if I commented on the issue of
tar ponds, because I do not have any expertise in this area.
I can say that a lot of pressure is being exerted within our
government to find solutions to this problem. We will continue to
work to that end.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I believe that report of the Department of Health on plans and
priorities clearly demonstrates that Health Canada is focusing
its efforts and its resources on the health priorities that make
sense for the people of Canada. However, to understand these
estimates, we must first understand the role the Government of
Canada plays in our health care system.
We know that the delivery of health care services is almost
completely under the jurisdiction of the provinces. They decide
how services are to be organized. They negotiate with physicians
and nurses and they set overall provincial funding levels.
The health of Canadians involves far more than just the delivery
of health care services. The Government of Canada has a set of
distinct roles that reflect its wide perspective. The funding
provided in these estimates support the achievement of those
roles.
One aspect of the basic operations of Health Canada is our
health care policy. This involves many elements of co-operation
with the provinces, the territories and the new territories in
order to ensure that all Canadians have a health care system that
works for them.
Much of that collaboration will be aided by the implementation
of the first ministers agreement on health which was signed by
the first ministers last September. By putting $18.9 billion
more into funding over the next five years, we will go a long way
toward revitalizing our health care system for the 21st century.
The Government of Canada did far more than just agree to
increase health and social transfers. It set up three targeted
funds: $1 billion for medical equipment, $800 million for
innovation and reform, and $500 million to strengthen information
technologies so that we can move ahead in areas such as
tele-health programs that will allow people in remote areas to
contact medical experts in large cities.
One priority that will be particularly interesting for
Canadians, and these estimates will help support it, is the work
that will take place with the provinces, territories and outside
experts to define common indicators. It will mean that Canadians
will be able to look to a consistent set of indicators that cover
health status, health outcomes, and the quality of service across
Canada.
I also want to note the funding for the new tobacco control
strategy of $480 million over five years.
2200
I also want to mention the investment in improving the health of
our first nations and Inuit. This is a basic constitutional
responsibility of the Government of Canada and it involves many
elements.
I have many other points to make, but let me conclude. Canadians
expect the Government of Canada to take a lead role on health
issues and to take those responsibilities very seriously. That is
precisely what the Government of Canada does.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 10 p.m., it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[English]
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 Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
2230
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 157
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Clark
| Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
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
|
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)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 111
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, Motions Nos. 2 through 190
relating to the main estimates and standing in the name of the
Hon. President of Treasury Board are deemed moved and seconded,
the questions are deemed to have been put, and the motions agreed
to on division.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—HEALTH
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount
of $954,627,000, under HEALTH—Department—Grants and
contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—HEALTH
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount
of $19,748,000, under HEALTH—Canadian Institutes of
Health Research—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less
the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—HEALTH
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount
of $408,885,000, under HEALTH—Canadian Institutes of
Health Research—Grants, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—HEALTH
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount
of $2,485,000, under HEALTH—Hazardous Materials
Information Review Commission—Program expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—HEALTH
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount
of $3,617,000, under HEALTH—Patented Medicine Prices
Review Board—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—FINANCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount
of $48,836,000, under FINANCE—Auditor General—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—PARLIAMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount
of $182,882,033, under PARLIAMENT—House of Commons—
Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount
of $11,765,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Chief Electoral
Officer—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount
of $474,966,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount
of $1,062,797,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—
Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less
the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the
amount of $7,935,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—
Canadian Industrial Relations Board—Program expenditures,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the
amount of $1,570,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—
Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations
Tribunal—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the
amount of $2,255,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety—
Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount
of $72,901,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Program expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount
of $272,735,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Operating expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the
amount of $35,800,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Capital expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the
amount of $4,285,133,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Grants and contributions, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L20—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote L20, in the
amount of $32,853,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Loans to native claimants, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L25—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote L25, in the
amount of $37,840,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Loans to First Nations in
British Columbia, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L30—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote L30, in the
amount of $400,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Loans to the Council of Yukon
First Nations, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the
amount of $84,729,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Operating expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 40—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 40, in the
amount of $53,104,900, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Grants and contributions, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 45—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 45, in the
amount of $15,600,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Payments to Canada Post
Corporation, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 50—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 50, in the
amount of $890,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT—Canadian Polar Commission—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount
of $393,076,000, under INDUSTRY—Department—Operating
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount
of $703,378,000, under INDUSTRY—Department—Grants and
contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L10—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote L10, in the
amount of $300,000, under INDUSTRY—Department—Payments,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L15—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote L15, in the
amount of $500,000, under INDUSTRY—Department—Loans, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the
amount of $60,597,000, under INDUSTRY—Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less
the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the
amount of $277,073,000, under INDUSTRY—Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency—Grants and contributions, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the
amount of $111,687,000, under INDUSTRY—Canadian Space
Agency—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the
amount of $184,678,000, under INDUSTRY—Canadian Space
Agency—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 40—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 40, in the
amount of $49,971,000, under INDUSTRY—Canadian Space
Agency—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 45—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 45, in the
amount of $82,460,000, under INDUSTRY—Canadian Tourism
Commission—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 50—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 50, in the
amount of $1,375,000, under INDUSTRY—Competition Tribunal—
Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 55—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 55, in the
amount of $1,665,000, under INDUSTRY—Copyright Board—
Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 60—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 60, in the
amount of $33,686,000, under INDUSTRY—Economic
Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—
Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 65—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 65, in the amount of $273,402,000, under INDUSTRY—Economic
Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—Grants and
contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 70—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 70, in the amount of $36,574,000, under INDUSTRY—Enterprise
Cape Breton Corporation—Payments, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 75—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 75, in the amount of $287,170,000, under INDUSTRY—National
Research Council of Canada—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 80—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 80, in the amount of $66,284,000, under INDUSTRY—National
Research Council of Canada—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 85—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 85, in the amount of $133,614,000, under INDUSTRY—National
Research Council of Canada—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 90—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 90, in the amount of $28,738,000, under INDUSTRY—Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council—Operating expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 95—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 95, in the amount of $575,548,000, under INDUSTRY—Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council—Grants, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 100—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 100, in the amount of $12,477,000, under INDUSTRY—Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council—Operating expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 105—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 105, in the amount of $146,883,000, under INDUSTRY—Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council—Grants, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 110—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 110, in the amount of $5,402,000, under INDUSTRY—Standards
Council of Canada—Payments, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 115—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 115, in the amount of $485,650,000, under INDUSTRY—Statistics
Canada—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 120—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 120, in the amount of $38,551,000, under INDUSTRY—Western
Economic Diversification—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 125—INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 125, in the amount of $223,428,000, under INDUSTRY—Western
Economic Diversification—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $968,452,000, under FISHERIES AND OCEANS—
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $158,092,000, under FISHERIES AND OCEANS—
Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $80,620,100, under FISHERIES AND OCEANS—
Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $465,725,956, under ENVIRONMENT—
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $32,239,000, under ENVIRONMENT—
Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $70,235,294, under ENVIRONMENT—
Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $10,363,000, under ENVIRONMENT—Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $411,978,000, under CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $27,870,000, under CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION—Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
[English]
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $336,471,517, under CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION—Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $72,659,000, under CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION—Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PARLIAMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $36,122,300, under PARLIAMENT—Senate—
Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—PARLIAMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $20,605,000, under PARLIAMENT—Library of
Parliament—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $22,343,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $61,758,200, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—
Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $192,332,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—
Canadian Security Intelligence Service—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $1,092,378,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—
Correctional Service—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $148,100,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—
Correctional Service—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $24,105,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—
National Parole Board—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $1,749,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—
Office of the Correctional Investigator—Program expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $1,053,168,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—
Royal Canadian Mounted Police—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 40—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 40, in the amount of $181,043,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—
Royal Canadian Mounted Police—Capital expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 45—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 45, in the amount of $758,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—Royal
Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee—Program expenditures,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 50—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 50, in the amount of $3,463,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $308,238,000, under JUSTICE—Department—
Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $373,205,000, under JUSTICE—Department—
Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $15,245,000, under JUSTICE—Canadian Human
Rights Commission—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $2,682,000, under JUSTICE—Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $4,322,000, under JUSTICE—Commissioner
for Federal Judicial Affairs—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $507,000, under JUSTICE—Commissioner for
Federal Judicial Affairs—Canadian Judicial Council, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $30,258,000, under JUSTICE—Federal Court
of Canada—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $2,870,000, under JUSTICE—Law Commission
of Canada—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 40—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 40, in the amount of $3,654,000, under JUSTICE—Offices of the
Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada—Office of the
Information Commissioner of Canada Program, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 45—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 45, in the amount of $9,743,000, under JUSTICE—Offices of the
Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada—Office of the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada Program, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 50—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 50, in the amount of $12,994,000, under JUSTICE—Supreme Court
of Canada—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 55—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 55, in the amount of $9,738,000, under JUSTICE—Tax Court of
Canada—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—GOVERNOR GENERAL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $14,415,000, under GOVERNOR GENERAL—
Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $91,469,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—
Department—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $12,192,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Canadian
Centre for Management Development—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $3,392,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Canadian
Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat—Program expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $21,038,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Canadian
Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $9,944,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—
Commissioner of Official Languages—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $1,941,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Millenium
Bureau of Canada—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $24,212,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—
Millenium Bureau of Canada—Contributions, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 40—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 40, in the amount of $5,052,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—National
Round Table on the Environment and the Economy—Program expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 45—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 45, in the amount of $5,085,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Public
Service Staff Relations Board—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 50—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 50, in the amount of $2,074,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Security
Intelligence Review Committee—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 55—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 55, in the amount of $2,272,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—The
Leadership Network—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—FINANCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $72,507,000, under FINANCE—Department—
Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—FINANCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $326,000,000, under FINANCE—Department—
Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L10—FINANCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote L10, in the amount of $1, under FINANCE—Department—
Payments to the International Development Association, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—FINANCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $1,579,000,000, under FINANCE—
Department—Federal-Provincial Transfers Program, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—FINANCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $7,554,000, under FINANCE—Canadian
International Trade Tribunal—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—FINANCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $21,232,000, under FINANCE—Financial
Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada—Program expenditures,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—FINANCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $1,660,000, under FINANCE—Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions—Program expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—TRANSPORT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $131,005,000, under TRANSPORT—
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—TRANSPORT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $97,449,000, under TRANSPORT—
Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—TRANSPORT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $203,527,501, under TRANSPORT—
Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—TRANSPORT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $116,237,000, under TRANSPORT—
Department—Payments to the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc.,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—TRANSPORT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $247,739,000, under TRANSPORT—
Department—Payments to VIA Rail Canada Inc., in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—TRANSPORT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $21,236,000, under TRANSPORT—Canadian
Transportation Agency—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—TRANSPORT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $891,000, under TRANSPORT—Civil
Aviation Tribunal—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $960,207,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $108,606,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $393,378,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $10,734,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Canadian Commercial Corporation—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L30—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote L30, in the amount of $1, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Canadian International Development Agency—
Contributions to the International Financial Institution Fund Accounts, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L35—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote L35, in the amount of $4,500,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Canadian International Development Agency—Capital
subscriptions in International Financial Institutions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 40—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 40, in the amount of $88,270,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—International Development Research Centre—
Payments, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 45—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 45, in the amount of $7,007,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—International Joint Commission—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 50—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 50, in the amount of $2,115,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—NAFTA Secretariat, Canadian Section—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 55—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 55, in the amount of $238,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Northern Pipeline Agency—Program expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $2,188,113,000, under CANADA CUSTOMS AND
REVENUE AGENCY—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $13,727,000, under CANADA CUSTOMS AND
REVENUE AGENCY—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $110,326,000, under CANADA CUSTOMS AND
REVENUE AGENCY—Contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $423,028,000, under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-
FOOD—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $37,467,000, under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-
FOOD—Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $809,447,000, under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-
FOOD—Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $1, under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD—
Department—Spring Credit Advance Program, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $2,762,000, under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-
FOOD—Canadian Dairy Commission—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $260,089,000, under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-
FOOD—Canadian Food Inspection Agency—Operating expenditures and
contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $5,014,000, under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-
FOOD—Canadian Food Inspection Agency—Capital expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $18,495,000, under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-
FOOD—Canadian Grain Commission—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $97,748,000, under TREASURY BOARD—
Secretariat—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 2—TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 2, in the amount of $22,110,000, under TREASURY BOARD—
Secretariat—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $750,000,000, under TREASURY BOARD—
Secretariat—Government Contingencies, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $132,627,000, under TREASURY BOARD—
Secretariat—Government-Wide Initiatives, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $1,061,202,000, under TREASURY BOARD—
Secretariat—Public Service Insurance, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—NATURAL RESOURCES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $446,089,000, under NATURAL RESOURCES—
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—NATURAL RESOURCES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $24,680,000, under NATURAL RESOURCES—
Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—NATURAL RESOURCES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $110,162,844, under NATURAL RESOURCES—
Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—NATURAL RESOURCES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $121,604,000, under NATURAL RESOURCES—
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited—Operating and Capital expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—NATURAL RESOURCES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $43,774,000, under NATURAL RESOURCES—
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—NATURAL RESOURCES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $31,010,000, under NATURAL RESOURCES—
Cape Breton Development Corporation—Operating and Capital expenditures,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—NATURAL RESOURCES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $25,879,000, under NATURAL RESOURCES—
National Energy Board—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $549,870,000, under VETERANS AFFAIRS—
Program—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $1,513,848,000, under VETERANS AFFAIRS—
Program—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $8,975,000, under VETERANS AFFAIRS—
Veterans Review and Appeal Board—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $7,964,877,080, under NATIONAL DEFENCE—
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $2,143,289,000, under NATIONAL DEFENCE—
Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $402,138,767, under NATIONAL DEFENCE—
Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $8,197,000, under NATIONAL DEFENCE—
Canadian Forces Grievance Board—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $3,653,000, under NATIONAL DEFENCE—
Military Police Complaints Commission—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $1,650,205,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $281,131,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $4,000,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Department—Payment to Queens Quay West Land
Corporation, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $48,665,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Canada Information Office—Program expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $1,909,387,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation—Operating
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $247,210,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Canada Post Corporation—Payments, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $147,034,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $787,191,568, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L10—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote L10, in the amount of $10,000 under CANADIAN
HERITAGE—Department—Loans to institutions and public
authorities, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $124,236,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Canada Council—Payments, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $795,664,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation—Payments for operating expenditures,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $4,000,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation—Payments for working capital, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $123,311,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation—Payments for capital expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $125,532,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Canadian Film Development Corporation—Payments, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 45—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 45, in the amount of $23,691,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Canadian Museum of Nature—Payments for operating and capital
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 50—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 50, in the amount of $3,537,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 55—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 55, in the amount of $45,121,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Archives of Canada—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 60—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 60, in the amount of $23,930,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Arts Centre Corporation—Payments, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 65—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 65, in the amount of $6,798,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Battlefields Commission—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 70—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 70, in the amount of $44,949,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Capital Commission—Payment for operating expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 75—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 75, in the amount of $25,671,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Capital Commission—Payment to the National Capital Commission
for capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 80—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 80, in the amount of $14,090,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Capital Commission—Payment for grants and contributions, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount
voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 85—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 85, in the amount of $60,221,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Film Board—National Film Board Revolving Fund, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 90—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 90, in the amount of $33,188,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Gallery of Canada—Payments for operating and capital
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 95—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 95, in the amount of $3,000,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Gallery of Canada—Payment for the purchase of objects for the
collection, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 100—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 100, in the amount of $32,208,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Library—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 105—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 105, in the amount of $22,884,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
National Museum of Science and Technology—Payments for operating and
capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 110—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 110, in the amount of $266,891,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Parks Canada Agency—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 115—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 115, in the amount of $6,500,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Parks Canada Agency—Payments to the New Parks and Historic Sites
Account, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 120—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 120, in the amount of $97,176,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Public Service Commission—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 125—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 125, in the amount of $10,101,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Status of Women Office of the Co-ordinator, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 130—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 130, in the amount of $10,000,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Status of Women Office of the Co-ordinator—Grants, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—TRANSPORT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $36,347,000, under TRANSPORT—
Department—Payments to Marine Atlantic Inc., in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 40—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 40, in the amount of $49,745,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—
Canadian Museum of Civilization—Payments, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $138,423,342, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Canadian International Development Agency—
Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $1,481,929,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Canadian International Development Agency—Grants
and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March
31, 2002 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(Motions Nos. 2 to 190 deemed agreed to)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that Bill
C-29, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money
for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending
March 31, 2002, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill
be read the second time and referred to
committee of the whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion deemed agreed to, bill read the second time and
the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair)
[English]
(On clause 2)
Mr. John Williams: Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board could
assure us that this bill is in the usual form and in accordance
with the same standards of previous years.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, this bill is essentially
in the same form as those passed in previous years.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported)
2235
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: 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 yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? With
leave of the House, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
The Speaker: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that the vote on the first motion this evening be
applied to the vote now before the House.
The Speaker: Is it agreed to apply the earlier vote to
this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 157
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Clark
| Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
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
|
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)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Paquette
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 111
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
[English]
Before I adjourn the House I might say to hon. members that I
will not be here tomorrow. Since the House may adjourn tomorrow
night, according to rumours, I want to say how much I hope all
hon. members enjoy a very pleasant summer.
[Translation]
I hope that, as always, members will work very hard during the
summer and return in September full of vigour and enthusiasm for
the new session.
[English]
It being 10.37 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10.37 p.m.)