Section Home
Print format
 
Publications - December 7, 1999 (Previous - Next)
 

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 36

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 7, 1999

VROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

. 1005

VGOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
VMr. Derek Lee
VELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
VBill C-397. Introduction and first reading
VMr. André Harvey
VPETITIONS
VFamilies
VMr. Randy White
VGenetically Modified Foods
VMr. Stéphan Tremblay

. 1010

VViolence
VMr. Guy St-Julien
VChild Pornography
VMr. Ken Epp
VFamilies
VMr. John Bryden
VQUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
VMr. Derek Lee
VGOVERNMENT ORDERS
VCANADA ELECTIONS ACT
VBill C-2. Report stage and second reading
VSpeaker's Ruling
VThe Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

. 1015

. 1020

VMotions in Amendment
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotion No. 1
VMr. Ken Epp
VMotion No. 87
VMr. John Solomon
VMotion No. 88

. 1025

VMr. Ken Epp
VMotion No. 89
VHon. Raymond Chan
VMotion No. 90
VMr. Ken Epp
VMotions Nos. 91 and 92
VMr. John Solomon
VMotion No. 93
VHon. Raymond Chan
VMotion No. 94

. 1030

VMr. Ken Epp
VMotions Nos. 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotion No. 100

. 1035

VMr. John Bryden
VMotion No. 101
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotions Nos. 103 and 104

. 1040

VMr. John Solomon
VMotion No. 105
VHon. Raymond Chan
VMotions Nos. 109 and 111
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotion No. 112
VMr. John Solomon
VMotions Nos. 113 and 114
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotion No. 115

. 1045

VMr. John Solomon
VMotion No. 116
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron

. 1050

. 1055

VMr. Derek Lee

. 1100

VMr. Rob Anders

. 1105

. 1110

. 1115

VMr. John Solomon

. 1120

VMr. Jean-Guy Chrétien

. 1125

. 1130

. 1135

VDivision on Motion No. 1 deferred

. 1140

VSpeaker's Ruling
VThe Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
VMotions in amendment
VHon. Raymond Chan
VMotion No. 102
VHon. Don Boudria
VMotion No. 109
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotion No. 117
VMr. John Solomon
VMotion No. 118
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotion No. 119
VMr. John Solomon
VMotions Nos. 120 and 121
VHon. Raymond Chan
VMotions Nos. 122 and 123
VMr. Ted White
VMotion No. 128
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotion No. 129
VMr. John Solomon
VMotions Nos. 130 and 131
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotion No. 132
VMr. John Solomon
VMotion No. 133
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotion No. 134
VMr. John Solomon
VMotion No. 135
VMr. Stéphane Bergeron
VMotions Nos. 139, 140 and 141
VMr. John Bryden

. 1145

. 1150

VMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

. 1155

VMr. André Harvey

. 1200

. 1205

VMr. Rob Anders

. 1210

. 1215

VMr. Ghislain Fournier

. 1220

. 1225

VThe Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
VMr. John Solomon

. 1230

. 1235

VMr. Derek Lee

. 1240

. 1245

VMr. Keith Martin

. 1250

. 1255

. 1300

VMr. Jean Dubé

. 1305

VMr. Stéphane Bergeron

. 1310

. 1315

VHon. Lorne Nystrom

. 1320

. 1325

. 1330

VMr. Jason Kenney

. 1335

. 1340

VMr. Yves Rocheleau

. 1345

VMr. Jim Gouk

. 1350

. 1355

VSTATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
VAMATEUR BOXING
VMr. David Pratt
VHEPATITIS C
VMr. Reed Elley

. 1400

VTHE CONSTITUTION
VMr. Guy St-Julien
VWINTERSTART ALPINE SKI WORLD CUPS
VMrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell
VFIREARMS
VMr. Darrel Stinson
VRIDING OF HULL—AYLMER
VMr. Marcel Proulx
VMARIE-CLAIRE BLAIS
VMr. Pierre de Savoye

. 1405

VHANNUKAH
VMr. Irwin Cotler
VIMMIGRATION
VMr. Bernard Patry
VTAXATION
VMr. John Williams
VYOUTH VIOLENCE
VMs. Judy Sgro
VCHECHNYA
VMr. Svend J. Robinson

. 1410

VWOMEN'S HOCKEY
VMs. Caroline St-Hilaire
VIMPAIRED DRIVING
VMr. Janko Peric
VLIGHTHOUSES
VMr. Peter MacKay
VNATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
VMr. Peter Adams
VMEMBER FOR NOTRE-DAME-DE-GRÂCE—LACHINE
VMrs. Suzanne Tremblay

. 1415

VORAL QUESTION PERIOD
VABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
VMr. Preston Manning
VHon. Herb Gray
VMr. Preston Manning
VHon. Herb Gray
VMr. Preston Manning
VHon. Herb Gray
VMiss Deborah Grey

. 1420

VHon. Herb Gray
VMiss Deborah Grey
VHon. Robert D. Nault
VYOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
VMr. Gilles Duceppe
VHon. Herb Gray
VMr. Gilles Duceppe
VHon. Anne McLellan

. 1425

VFEDERALISM
VMr. Daniel Turp
VHon. Stéphane Dion
VMr. Daniel Turp
VHon. Stéphane Dion
VAGRICULTURE
VMs. Alexa McDonough
VHon. Lyle Vanclief
VMs. Alexa McDonough
VHon. Lyle Vanclief
VHIGHWAYS
VMr. Scott Brison

. 1430

VHon. Paul Martin
VMr. Scott Brison
VHon. Paul Martin
VABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
VMr. Mike Scott
VHon. Robert D. Nault
VMr. Mike Scott
VHon. Herb Gray
VEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
VMr. Paul Crête

. 1435

VHon. Jane Stewart
VMr. Paul Crête
VHon. Jane Stewart
VTAXATION
VMr. Monte Solberg
VHon. Paul Martin
VMr. Monte Solberg
VHon. Paul Martin
VCHECHNYA
VMrs. Francine Lalonde
VHon. Lloyd Axworthy
VMrs. Francine Lalonde

. 1440

VHon. Lloyd Axworthy
VHEALTH
VMr. Keith Martin
VHon. Allan Rock
VMr. Keith Martin
VHon. Allan Rock
VIMMIGRATION
VMr. Bernard Bigras
VHon. Elinor Caplan
VAIRLINE INDUSTRY
VMr. Sarkis Assadourian
VHon. David M. Collenette

. 1445

VTRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
VMr. David Chatters
VHon. Ralph E. Goodale
VMr. David Chatters
VHon. Ralph E. Goodale
VATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
VMr. Peter Stoffer
VHon. George S. Baker
VDEVCO
VMrs. Michelle Dockrill
VHon. Ralph E. Goodale

. 1450

VCOAST GUARD
VMr. Charlie Power
VHon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal
VMr. Charlie Power
VHon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal
VNORTHWEST TERRITORIES
VMr. John O'Reilly
VHon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew
VCOSCO
VMr. Jim Abbott
VHon. Lawrence MacAulay

. 1455

VGLOBALIZATION
VMr. Stéphan Tremblay
VHon. Don Boudria
VRCMP
VMr. Svend J. Robinson
VHon. Lawrence MacAulay
VAIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
VMr. André Bachand
VHon. David M. Collenette
VRURAL DEVELOPMENT
VMrs. Rose-Marie Ur
VHon. Andy Mitchell

. 1500

VPOINTS OF ORDER
VComments in Chamber
VMiss Deborah Grey
VHon. Paul Martin

. 1505

VWAYS AND MEANS
VNotice of motion
VHon. Jim Peterson
VGOVERNMENT ORDERS
VCANADA ELECTIONS ACT
VBill C-2. Report stage and Second Reading
VSpeaker's Ruling
VThe Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

. 1510

VReport Stage
VMr. Deepak Obhrai

. 1515

. 1520

VMr. René Laurin

. 1525

. 1530

VMr. Paul Bonwick

. 1535

VMr. Ken Epp

. 1540

. 1545

VMr. Jean-Guy Chrétien

. 1550

. 1555

. 1600

VMr. Paul Crête

. 1605

. 1610

VMr. Grant McNally

. 1615

. 1620

VMrs. Michelle Dockrill

. 1625

VMs. Caroline St-Hilaire

. 1630

. 1635

VMr. Leon E. Benoit

. 1640

. 1645

VMr. Yvan Bernier

. 1650

. 1655

VMr. Claude Bachand

. 1700

. 1705

VMr. Paul Forseth

. 1710

. 1715

VMr. Stéphan Tremblay

. 1720

. 1725

VMr. Reed Elley
VNISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
VBill C-9. Report stage

. 1755

. 1800

. 1805

(Division 62)

VMotion No. 1 negatived

. 1815

(Division 63)

VMotion No. 2 negatived

. 1825

(Division 64)

VMotion No. 3 negatived

. 1835

(Division 65)

VMotion No. 4 negatived

. 1840

(Division 66)

VMotion No. 5 negatived

. 1850

(Division 67)

VMotion No. 6 negatived

. 1900

(Division 68)

VMotion No. 7 negatived

. 1905

(Division 69)

VMotion No. 8 negatived

. 1910

(Division 70)

VMotion No. 9 negatived.

. 1915

(Division 71)

VMotion No. 10 negatived

. 1920

(Division 72)

VMotion No. 11 negatived

. 1930

(Division 73)

VMotion No. 12 negatived

. 1935

(Division 74)

VMotion No. 13 negatived

. 1940

(Division 75)

VMotion No. 14 negatived

. 1950

(Division 76)

VMotion No. 15 negatived

. 1955

(Division 77)

VMotion No. 16 negatived

. 2000

. 2010

(Division 78)

VMotion No. 17 negatived

. 2015

(Division 79)

VMotion No. 18 negatived

. 2020

(Division 80)

VMotion No. 19 negatived

. 2030

(Division 81)

VMotion No. 20 negatived

. 2035

(Division 82)

VMotion No. 21 negatived

. 2040

(Division 83)

VMotion No. 22 negatived

. 2050

(Division 84)

VMotion No. 23 negatived

. 2055

(Division 85)

VMotion No. 24 negatived

. 2100

(Division 86)

VMotion No. 25 negatived

. 2105

. 2110

(Division 87)

VMotion No. 26 negatived

. 2115

(Division 88)

VMotion No. 27 negatived

. 2125

(Division 89)

VMotion No. 28 negatived

. 2130

(Division 90)

VMotion No. 29 negatived

. 2140

(Division 91)

VMotion No. 30 negatived

. 2145

(Division 92)

VMotion No. 31 negatived

. 2150

. 2155

(Division 93)

VMotion No. 32 negatived

. 2200

(Division 94)

VMotion No. 33 negatived

. 2205

(Division 95)

VMotion No. 34 negatived

. 2210

. 2215

(Division 96)

VMotion No. 35 negatived

. 2220

(Division 97)

VMotion No. 36 negatived

. 2225

. 2230

(Division 98)

VMotion No. 37 negatived

. 2240

(Division 99)

VMotion No. 38 negatived

. 2245

(Division 100)

VMotion No. 39 negatived

. 2250

(Division 101)

VMotion No. 40 negatived

. 2300

(Division 102)

VMotion No. 41 negatived

. 2305

. 2310

(Division 103)

VMotion No. 42 negatived

. 2315

(Division 104)

VMotion No. 43 negatived

. 2320

(Division 105)

VMotion No. 44 negatived

. 2325

(Division 106)

VMotion No. 45 negatived

. 2330

(Division 107)

VMotion No. 46 negatived

. 2335

. 2340

(Division 108)

VMotion No. 47 negatived

. 2345

(Division 109)

VMotion No. 48 negatived

. 2350

(Division 110)

. 2355

(Division 111)

VMotion No. 50 negatived

. 2400

. 2405

(Division 112)

VMotion No. 51 negatived

. 2410

(Division 113)

VMotion No. 52 negatived

. 2415

. 2420

(Division 114)

VMotion No. 53 negatived

. 2425

(Division 115)

VMotion No. 54 negatived

. 2430

(Division 116)

VMotion No. 55 negatived

. 2435

(Division 117)

VMotion No. 56 negatived

. 2440

. 2445

(Division 118)

VMotion No. 57 negatived

. 2450

(Division 119)

VMotion No. 58 negatived

. 2455

(Division 120)

VMotion No. 59 negatived

. 2500

(Division 121)

VMotion No. 60 negatived

. 2510

(Division 122)

VMotion 61 negatived

. 2515

(Division 123)

VMotion No. 62 negatived

. 2520

(Division 124)

VMotion No. 63 negatived

. 2525

(Division 125)

VMotion No. 64 negatived

. 2535

(Division 126)

VMotion No. 65 negatived

. 2540

(Division 127)

VMotion No. 66 negatived

. 2545

(Division 128)

VMotion No. 67 negatived

. 2550

(Division 129)

VMotion No. 68 negatived

. 2600

(Division 130)

VMotion No. 69 negatived

. 2605

(Division 131)

VMotion No. 70 negatived

. 2610

(Division 132)

VMotion No. 71 negatived

. 2620

(Division 133)

VMotion No. 72 negatived

. 2625

(Division 134)

VMotion No. 73 negatived

. 2635

(Division 135)

VMotion No. 74 negatived

. 2640

(Division 136)

VMotion No. 75 negatived

. 2645

(Division 137)

VMotion No. 76 negatived

. 2650

(Division 138)

VMotion No. 77 negatived

. 2655

(Division 139)

VMotion No. 78 negatived

. 2705

(Division 140)

VMotion No. 79 negatived

. 2710

(Division 141)

VMotion No. 80 negatived

. 2715

(Division 142)

VMotion No. 81 negatived

. 2720

(Division 143)

VMotion No. 82 negatived

. 2725

(Division 144)

VMotion No. 83 negatived

. 2735

(Division 145)

VMotion No. 84 negatived

. 2740

(Division 146)

VMotion No. 85 negatived

. 2745

(Division 147)

VMotion No. 86 negatived

. 2750

(Division 148)

VMotion No. 87 negatived

. 2755

(Division 149)

VMotion No. 88 negatived

. 2800

(Division 150)

VMotion No. 89 negatived

. 2810

(Division 151)

VMotion No. 90 negatived

. 2815

(Division 152)

VMotion No. 91 negatived

. 2820

(Division 153)

VMotion No. 92 negatived

. 2825

(Division 154)

VMotion No. 93 negatived

. 2830

(Division 155)

VMotion No. 94 negatived

. 2835

(Division 156)

VMotion No. 95 negatived

. 2845

(Division 157)

VMotion No. 96 negatived

. 2850

(Division 158)

VMotion No. 97 negatived

. 2855

(Division 159)

VMotion No. 98 negatived

. 2900

(Division 160)

VMotion No. 99 negatived

. 2905

(Division 161)

VMotion No. 100 negatived

. 2910

(Division 162)

VMotion No. 101 negatived

. 2920

(Division 163)

VMotion No. 102 negatived

. 2925

(Division 164)

VMotion No. 103 negatived

. 2930

(Division 165)

VMotion No. 104 negatived

. 2935

. 2940

(Division 166)

VMotion No. 105 negatived

. 2945

(Division 167)

VMotion No. 106 negatived

. 2950

. 2955

(Division 168)

VMotion No. 107 negatived

. 3000

. 3005

(Division 169)

VMotion No. 108 negatived

. 3010

(Division 170)

VMotion No. 109 negatived

. 3015

(Division 171)

VMotion No. 110 negatived

. 3020

(Division 172)

VMotion No. 111 negatived

. 3025

(Division 173)

VMotion No. 112 negatived

. 3030

(Division 174)

VMotion No. 113 negatived

. 3035

(Division 175)

VMotion No. 114 negatived

. 3040

(Division 176)

VMotion No. 115 negatived

. 3045

(Division 177)

VMotion No. 116 negatived

. 3050

(Division 178)

VMotion No. 117 negatived

. 3055

(Division 179)

VMotion No. 118 negatived

. 3100

(Division 180)

VMotion No. 119 negatived

. 3105

(Division 181)

VMotion No. 120 negatived

. 3110

(Division 182)

VMotion No. 121 negatived

. 3115

(Division 183)

VMotion No. 122 negatived

. 3120

(Division 184)

VMotion No. 123 negatived

. 3130

(Division 185)

VMotion No. 124 negatived

. 3135

(Division 186)

VMotion No. 125 negatived

. 3140

(Division 187)

VMotion No. 126 negatived

. 3145

(Division 188)

VMotion No. 127 negatived

. 3150

(Division 189)

VMotion No. 128 negatived

. 3155

(Division 190)

VMotion No. 129 negatived

. 3200

(Division 191)

VMotion No. 130 negatived

. 3205

(Division 192)

VMotion No. 131 negatived

. 3210

(Division 193)

VMotion No. 132 negatived

. 3215

(Division 194)

VMotion No. 133 negatived

. 3220

(Division 195)

VMotion No. 134 negatived

. 3225

(Division 196)

VMotion No. 135 negatived

. 3230

(Division 197)

VMotion No. 136 negatived

. 3235

. 3240

(Division 198)

VMotion No. 137 negatived

. 3245

(Division 199)

VMotion No. 138 negatived

. 3250

(Division 200)

VMotion No. 139 negatived

. 3255

(Division 201)

VMotion No. 140 negatived

. 3305

(Division 202)

VMotion No. 141 negatived

. 3310

(Division 203)

VMotion No. 142 negatived

. 3315

(Division 204)

VMotion No. 143 negatived

. 3320

(Division 205)

VMotion No. 144 negatived

. 3325

(Division 206)

VMotion No. 145 negatived

. 3330

(Division 207)

VMotion No. 146 negatived

. 3335

(Division 208)

VMotion No. 147 negatived

. 3340

(Division 209)

VMotion No. 148 negatived

. 3345

. 3350

(Division 210)

VMotion No. 149 negatived

. 3355

(Division 211)

VMotion No. 150 negatived

. 3400

VROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
VCOMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
VTransport
VMr. Stan Keyes
VGOVERNMENT ORDERS
VNISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
VBill C-9. Report stage

. 3405

(Division 212)

VMotion No. 151 negatived

. 3410

(Division 213)

VMotion No. 152 negatived

. 3420

(Division 214)

VMotion No. 153 negatived

. 3425

(Division 215)

VMotion No. 154 negatived

. 3430

(Division 216)

VMotion No. 155 negatived

. 3435

(Division 217)

VMotion No. 156 negatived

. 3440

. 3445

(Division 218)

VMotion No. 157 negatived

. 3450

(Division 219)

VMotion No. 158 negatived

. 3455

(Division 220)

VMotion No. 159 negatived

. 3500

. 3505

(Division 221)

VMotion No. 160 negatived

. 3510

(Division 222)

VMotion No. 161 negatived

. 3515

(Division 223)

VMotion No. 162 negatived

. 3520

(Division 224)

VMotion No. 163 negatived

. 3525

. 3530

(Division 225)

VMotion No. 164 negatived

. 3535

(Division 226)

VMotion No. 165 negatived

. 3540

(Division 227)

VMotion No. 166 negatived

. 3545

(Division 228)

VMotion No. 167 negatived

. 3555

(Division 229)

VMotion No. 168 negatived

. 3600

(Division 230)

VMotion No. 169 negatived

. 3605

(Division 231)

VMotion No. 170 negatived

. 3610

(Division 232)

VMotion No. 171 negatived

. 3615

(Division 233)

VMotion No. 172 negatived

. 3620

. 3625

(Division 234)

VMotion No. 173 negatived

. 3630

(Division 235)

VMotion No. 174 negatived

. 3635

(Division 236)

VMotion No. 175 negatived

. 3640

(Division 237)

VMotion No. 176 negatived

. 3650

(Division 238)

VMotion No. 177 negatived

. 3655

(Division 239)

VMotion No. 178 negatived

. 3700

(Division 240)

VMotion No. 179 negatived

. 3705

(Division 241)

VMotion No. 180 negatived

. 3710

(Division 242)

VMotion No. 181 negatived

. 3720

(Division 243)

VMotion No. 182 negatived

. 3725

(Division 244)

VMotion No. 183 negatived

. 3730

(Division 245)

VMotion No. 184 negatived

. 3735

(Division 246)

VMotion No. 185 negatived

. 3740

(Division 247)

VMotion No. 186 negatived

. 3745

(Division 248)

VMotion No. 187 negatived

. 3750

(Division 249)

VMotion No. 188 negatived

. 3755

. 3800

(Division 250)

VMotion No. 189 negatived

. 3810

(Division 251)

VMotion No. 190 negatived
VPOINTS OF ORDER
VPairing of Members
VMr. John Nunziata

. 3815

VThe Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
VMr. Chuck Strahl
VNISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
VBill C-9. Report stage

. 3820

(Division 252)

VMotion No. 191 negatived

. 3830

(Division 253)

VMotion No. 192 negatived

. 3835

(Division 254)

VMotion No. 193 negatived

. 3840

(Division 255)

VMotion No. 194 negatived

. 3845

(Division 256)

VMotion No. 195 negatived

. 3850

(Division 257)

VMotion No. 196 negatived

. 3900

(Division 258)

VMotion No. 197 negatived

. 3905

(Division 259)

VMotion No. 198 negatived

. 3910

(Division 260)

VMotion No. 199 negatived

. 3915

(Division 261)

VMotion No. 200 negatived

. 3920

(Division 262)

VMotion No. 201 negatived
VPOINTS OF ORDER
VPairing of Members—Speaker's Ruling
VThe Speaker

. 3925

VMr. John Nunziata
VNISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
VBill C-9. Report Stage

. 3930

(Division 263)

VMotion No. 202 negatived

. 3935

(Division 264)

VMotion No. 203 negatived

. 3940

(Division 265)

VMotion No. 204 negatived

. 3945

(Division 266)

VMotion No. 205 negatived

. 3950

(Division 267)

VMotion No. 206 negatived

. 3955

(Division 268)

VMotion No. 207 negatived

. 4000

(Division 269)

VMotion No. 208 negatived

(Division 270)

VMotion No. 209 negatived

. 4010

(Division 271)

VMotion No. 210 negatived

. 4015

(Division 272)

VMotion No. 211 negatived

. 4020

(Division 273)

VMotion No. 212 negatived

. 4025

(Division 274)

VMotion No. 213 negatived

. 4030

(Division 275)

VMotion No. 214 negatived

. 4035

(Division 276)

VMotion No. 215 negatived

. 4040

(Division 277)

VMotion No. 216 negatived

. 4045

(Division 278)

VMotion No. 217 negatived

. 4050

(Division 279)

VMotion No. 218 negatived

. 4055

(Division 280)

VMotion No. 219 negatived

. 4100

(Division 281)

VMotion No. 220 negatived

. 4105

(Division 282)

VMotion No. 221 negatived

. 4110

(Division 283)

VMotion No. 222 negatived

. 4115

(Division 284)

VMotion No. 223 negatived

. 4120

(Division 285)

VMotion No. 224 negatived

. 4130

(Division 286)

VMotion No. 225 negatived

. 4135

(Division 287)

VMotion No. 226 negatived

. 4140

(Division 288)

VMotion No. 227 negatived

. 4150

(Division 289)

VMotion No. 228 negatived

. 4155

(Division 290)

VMotion No. 229 negatived

. 4200

(Division 291)

VMotion No. 230 negatived

. 4205

(Division 292)

VMotion No. 231 negatived

. 4215

(Division 293)

VMotion No. 232 negatived

. 4220

(Division 294)

VMotion No. 233 negatived

. 4225

(Division 295)

VMotion No. 234 negatived

. 4230

(Division 296)

VMotion No. 235 negatived

. 4235

(Division 297)

VMotion No. 236 negatived

. 4240

(Division 298)

VMotion No. 237 negatived

(Division 299)

VMotion No. 238 negatived

. 4245

(Division 300)

VMotion No. 239 negatived

. 4250

(Division 301)

VMotion No. 240 negatived

(Division 302)

VMotion No. 241 negatived

. 4255

(Division 303)

VMotion No. 242 negatived

. 4300

(Division 304)

VMotion No. 243 negatived

. 4305

(Division 305)

VMotion No. 244 negatived

. 4310

(Division 306)

VMotion No. 245 negatived

(Division 307)

VMotion No. 246 negatived

. 4315

(Division 308)

VMotion No. 247 negatived

. 4320

(Division 309)

VMotion No. 248 negatived

(Division 310)

VMotion No. 249 negatived

. 4325

(Division 311)

VMotion No. 250 negatived

. 4330

(Division 312)

VMotion No. 251 negatived

. 4335

(Division 313)

VMotion No. 252 negatived

. 4340

(Division 314)

VMotion No. 253 negatived

(Division 315)

VMotion No. 254 negatived

. 4345

(Division 316)

VMotion No. 255 negatived

. 4350

(Division 317)

VMotion No. 256 negatived

(Division 318)

VMotion No. 257 negatived

. 4355

(Division 319)

VMotion No. 258 negatived

. 4400

(Division 320)

VMotion No. 259 negatived

. 4405

(Division 321)

VMotion No. 260 negatived

. 4410

. 4415

(Division 322)

VMotion No. 261 negatived

. 4420

(Division 323)

VMotion No. 262 negatived

. 4425

(Division 324)

VMotion No. 263 negatived

. 4430

(Division 325)

VMotion No. 264 negatived

. 4435

(Division 326)

VMotion No. 265 negatived
VMrs. Elsie Wayne
VThe Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

. 4440

(Division 327)

VMotion No. 266 negatived

. 4450

(Division 328)

VMotion No. 267 negatived

. 4455

(Division 329)

VMotion No. 268 negatived

. 4500

(Division 330)

VMotion No. 269 negatived

. 4505

(Division 331)

VMotion No. 270 negatived

. 4510

(Division 332)

VMotion No. 271 negatived

. 4515

(Division 333)

VMotion No. 272 negatived

. 4520

(Division 334)

VMotion No. 273 negatived

. 4525

(Division 335)

VMotion No. 274 negatived

. 4530

(Division 336)

VMotion No. 275 negatived

(Division 337)

VMotion No. 276 negatived

. 4535

(Division 338)

VMotion No. 277 negatived

. 4540

. 4545

(Division 339)

VMotion No. 278 negatived

(Division 340)

VMotion No. 279 negatived

. 4550

(Division 341)

VMotion No. 280 negatived

. 4555

(Division 342)

VMotion No. 281 negatived

. 4600

(Division 343)

VMotion No. 282 negatived

. 4605

(Division 344)

VMotion No. 283 negatived

(Division 345)

VMotion No. 284 negatived

. 4610

(Division 346)

VMotion No. 285 negatived

. 4615

(Division 347)

VMotion No. 286 negatived

. 4620

(Division 348)

VMotion No. 287 negatived

(Division 349)

VMotion No. 288 negatived

. 4625

(Division 350)

VMotion No. 289 negatived

. 4630

(Division 351)

VMotion No. 290 negatived

. 4635

(Division 352)

VMotion No. 291 negatived.

. 4640

(Division 353)

VMotion No. 292 negatived

(Division 354)

VMotion No. 293 negatived.

. 4645

(Division 355)

VMotion No. 294 negatived

. 4650

(Division 356)

VMotion No. 295 negatived

(Division 357)

VMotion No. 296 negatived

. 4655

(Division 358)

VMotion No. 297 negatived

. 4700

(Division 359)

VMotion No. 298 negatived

(Division 360)

VMotion No. 299 negatived

. 4705

(Division 361)

VMotion No. 300 negatived

. 4710

(Division 362)

VMotion No. 301 negatived

. 4715

(Division 363)

VMotion No. 302 negatived

(Division 364)

VMotion No. 303 negatived

. 4720

(Division 365)

VMotion No. 304 negatived

. 4725

(Division 366)

VMotion No. 305 negatived

(Division 367)

VMotion No. 306 negatived

. 4730

(Division 368)

VMotion No. 307 negatived

. 4735

(Division 369)

VMotion No. 308 negatived

. 4740

(Division 370)

VMotion No. 309 negatived

. 4745

(Division 371)

VMotion No. 310 negatived

. 4750

(Division 372)

VMotion No. 311 negatived

. 4755

(Division 373)

VMotion No. 312 negatived

. 4800

(Division 374)

VMotion No. 313 negatived

. 4805

(Division 375)

VMotion No. 314 negatived

. 4810

(Division 376)

VMotion No. 315 negatived

. 4815

(Division 377)

VMotion No. 316 negatived

. 4820

(Division 378)

VMotion No. 317 negatived

. 4825

(Division 379)

VMotion No. 318 negatived

(Division 380)

VMotion No. 319 negatived

. 4830

(Division 381)

VMotion No. 320 negatived

. 4835

(Division 382)

VMotion No. 321 negatived

. 4840

. 4845

(Division 383)

VMotion No. 322 negatived

(Division 384)

VMotion No. 323 negatived

. 4850

(Division 385)

VMotion No. 324 negatived

. 4855

(Division 386)

VMotion No. 325 negatived

. 4900

(Division 387)

VMotion No. 326 negatived

. 4905

(Division 388)

VMotion No. 327 negatived

. 4910

(Division 389)

VMotion No. 328 negatived

. 4915

(Division 390)

VMotion No. 329 negatived

. 4920

(Division 391)

VMotion No. 330 negatived

. 4925

(Division 392)

VMotion No. 331 negatived

. 4930

(Division 393)

VMotion No. 332 negatived

. 4935

(Division 394)

VMotion No. 333 negatived

(Division 395)

VMotion No. 334 negatived

. 4940

(Division 396)

VMotion No. 335 negatived

. 4945

(Division 397)

VMotion No. 336 negatived

. 4950

(Division 398)

VMotion No. 337 negatived

. 4955

(Division 399)

VMotion No. 338 negatived

(Division 400)

VMotion No. 339 negatived

. 5000

(Division 401)

VMotion No. 340 negatived

. 5005

(Division 402)

VMotion No. 341 negatived

. 5010

(Division 403)

VMotion No. 342 negatived

. 5015

(Division 404)

VMotion No. 343 negatived

. 5020

(Division 405)

VMotion No. 344 negatived

. 5025

(Division 406)

VMotion No. 345 negatived

. 5030

(Division 407)

VMotion No. 346 negatived

(Division 408)

VMotion No. 347 negatived

. 5035

(Division 409)

VMotion No. 348 negatived

. 5040

(Division 410)

VMotion No. 349 negatived

. 5045

(Division 411)

VMotion No. 350 negatived

. 5050

(Division 412)

VMotion No. 351 negatived

. 5055

(Division 413)

VMotion No. 352 negatived

(Division 414)

VMotion No. 353 negatived

. 5100

(Division 415)

VMotion No. 354 negatived

. 5105

. 5110

(Division 416)

VMotion No. 355 negatived

. 5115

(Division 417)

VMotion No. 356 negatived

. 5120

. 5125

(Division 418)

VMotion No. 357 negatived

. 5130

(Division 419)

VMotion No. 358 negatived

. 5135

(Division 420)

VMotion No. 359 negatived

. 5140

(Division 421)

VMotion No. 360 negatived

(Division 422)

VMotion No. 361 negatived

. 5145

(Division 423)

VMotion No. 362 negatived

. 5150

(Division 424)

VMotion No. 363 negatived

. 5155

(Division 425)

VMotion No. 364 negatived

. 5200

(Division 426)

VMotion No. 365 negatived

. 5205

(Division 427)

VMotion No. 366 negatived

(Division 428)

VMotion No. 367 negatived

. 5210

(Division 429)

VMotion No. 368 negatived

. 5215

. 5220

(Division 430)

VMotion No. 369 negatived

(Division 431)

VMotion No. 370 negatived

. 5225

(Division 432)

VMotion No. 371 negatived

. 5230

(Division 433)

VMotion No. 372 negatived

. 5235

(Division 434)

VMotion No. 373 negatived

. 5240

(Division 435)

VMotion No. 374 negatived

(Division 436)

VMotion No. 375 negatived

. 5245

(Division 437)

VMotion No. 376 negatived

. 5250

(Division 438)

VMotion No. 377 negatived

. 5255

(Division 439)

VMotion No. 378 negatived

. 5300

(Division 440)

VMotion No. 379 negatived

. 5305

(Division 441)

VMotion No. 380 negatived

(Division 442)

VMotion No. 381 negatived

. 5310

(Division 443)

VMotion No. 382 negatived

. 5315

(Division 444)

VMotion No. 383 negatived

(Division 445)

VMotion No. 384 negatived

. 5320

(Division 446)

VMotion No. 385 negatived

. 5325

(Division 447)

VMotion No. 386 negatived

. 5330

(Division 448)

VMotion No. 387 negatived

(Division 449)

VMotion No. 388 negatived

. 5335

(Division 450)

VMotion No. 389 negatived

. 5340

(Division 451)

VMotion No. 390 negatived

. 5345

(Division 452)

VMotion No. 391 negatived

(Division 453)

VMotion No. 392 negatived

. 5350

(Division 454)

VMotion No. 393 negatived

. 5355

(Division 455)

VMotion No. 394 negatived

. 5400

(Division 456)

VMotion No. 395 negatived

(Division 457)

VMotion No. 396 negatived

. 5405

(Division 458)

VMotion No. 397 negatived

. 5410

(Division 459)

VMotion No. 398 negatived

. 5415

(Division 460)

VMotion No. 399 negatived

(Division 461)

VMotion No. 400 negatived

. 5420

(Division 462)

VMotion No. 401 negatived

. 5425

(Division 463)

VMotion No. 402 negatived

. 5430

(Division 464)

VMotion No. 403 negatived

(Division 465)

VMotion No. 404 negatived

. 5435

(Division 466)

VMotion No. 405 negatived

. 5440

. 5445

(Division 467)

VMotion No. 406 negatived

. 5450

(Division 468)

VMotion No. 407 negatived

(Division 469)

VMotion No. 408 negatived

. 5455

(Division 470)

VMotion No. 409 negatived

. 5500

(Division 471)

VMotion No. 410 negatived

. 5505

(Division 472)

VMotion No. 411 negatived

. 5510

(Division 473)

VMotion No. 412 negatived

. 5515

(Division 474)

VMotion No. 413 negatived

(Division 475)

VMotion No. 414 negatived

. 5520

(Division 476)

VMotion No. 415 negatived

. 5525

(Division 477)

VMotion No. 416 negatived

. 5530

(Division 478)

VMotion No. 417 negatived

. 5535

(Division 479)

VMotion No. 418 negatived

. 5540

(Division 480)

VMotion No. 419 negatived

. 5545

(Division 481)

VMotion No. 420 negatived

. 5550

(Division 482)

VMotion No. 421 negatived

. 5555

(Division 483)

VMotion No. 422 negatived

(Division 484)

VMotion No. 423 negatived

. 5600

(Division 485)

VMotion No. 424 negatived

. 5605

(Division 486)

VMotion No. 425 negatived

. 5610

. 5615

(Division 487)

VMotion No. 426 negatived

(Division 488)

VMotion No. 427 negatived

. 5620

. 5625

(Division 489)

VMotion No. 428 negatived

. 5630

(Division 490)

VMotion No. 429 negatived

. 5635

(Division 491)

VMotion No. 430 negatived

. 5640

(Division 492)

VMotion No. 431 negatived

. 5645

(Division 493)

VMotion No. 432 negatived

. 5650

(Division 494)

VMotion No. 433 negatived

. 5655

(Division 495)

VMotion No. 434 negatived

. 5700

(Division 496)

VMotion No. 435 negatived

. 5705

(Division 497)

VMotion No. 436 negatived

. 5710

(Division 498)

VMotion No. 437 negatived

. 5715

(Division 499)

VMotion No. 438 negatived

. 5720

(Division 500)

VMotion No. 439 negatived

. 5725

(Division 501)

VMotion No. 440 negatived

. 5730

(Division 502)

VMotion No. 441 negatived

. 5735

(Division 503)

VMotion No. 442 negatived

. 5740

(Division 504)

VMotion No. 443 negatived
VBUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VHon. Don Boudria
VMotion

. 5745

VNISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
VBill C-9. Report Stage

. 5750

(Division 505)

VMotion No. 444 negatived

. 5755

(Division 506)

VMotion No. 445 negatived

. 5800

(Division 507)

VMotion No. 446 negatived

. 5805

(Division 508)

VMotion No. 447 negatived
VBUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VHon. Don Boudria
VNISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
VBill C-9. Report Stage

. 5810

(Division 509)

VMotion No. 448 negatived

. 5815

(Division 510)

VMotion No. 449 negatived

. 5820

(Division 511)

VMotion No. 450 negatived

. 5825

(Division 512)

VMotion No. 451 negatived

. 5830

(Division 513)

VMotion No. 452 negatived

(Division 514)

VMotion No. 453 negatived

. 5835

(Division 515)

VMotion No. 454 negatived

. 5840

(Division 516)

VMotion No. 455 negatived

. 5845

(Division 517)

VMotion No. 456 negatived

. 5850

. 5855

(Division 518)

VMotion No. 457 negatived

. 5900

(Division 519)

VMotion No. 458 negatived

. 5905

(Division 520)

VMotion No. 459 negatived

. 5910

(Division 521)

VMotion No. 460 negatived

. 5915

(Division 522)

VMotion No. 461 negatived

. 5920

(Division 523)

VMotion No. 462 negatived

. 5925

(Division 524)

VMotion No. 463 negatived

. 5930

(Division 525)

VMotion No. 464 negatived

. 5935

(Division 526)

VMotion No. 465 negatived

. 5940

(Division 527)

VMotion No. 466 negatived

. 5945

(Division 528)

VMotion No. 467 negatived

. 5950

(Division 529)

VMotion No. 468 negatived

. 5955

(Division 530)

VMotion No. 469 negatived

. 6005

(Division 531)

VMotion No. 470 negatived

. 6010

(Division 532)

VMotion No. 471 negatived
VMs. Susan Whelan
VMotion for concurrence
VHon. Robert D. Nault

. 6020

(Division 533)

V(Motion agreed to)

(Official Version)

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 36


HOUSE OF COMMONS

Tuesday, December 7, 1999

The House met at 10 a.m.



Prayers


ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

. 1005 +

[English]

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS

Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

*  *  *

[Translation]

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT

 

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Chicoutimi.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill, the purpose of which is to change the name of my riding of Chicoutimi to Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. My riding is undergoing rapid changes and its second largest city will soon take on the name of Cité du Fjord. The new riding name would be Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I want to assure the House that all the citizens of my beautiful riding are in favour of this change. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for his support with respect to this bill. I am sure that I will have the support of all members of the House. If there any exceptions, I don't want to know about them.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

*  *  *

[English]

PETITIONS

FAMILIES

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table before the House. It indicates that the primary role of parents in the raising and discipline of their children is most important these days.

The petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's criminal code as it currently is worded.

[Translation]

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the world is rapidly changing, and elected representatives are not always up to speed on these changes.

Fortunately, citizens participate in political life by initiating important debates. This is the situation with the petition I am tabling today, a petition started as part of an awareness campaign by Biotech Action Montréal, as well as by Nadine Bachand and Pascal Martel.

The petition, signed by 20,000 people, calls for the mandatory labelling of foods containing genetically modified organisms, commonly called GMOs. I wish to mention the hard work done by my agronomist colleague from Louis-Hébert who spoke this morning.

 

. 1010 + -

VIOLENCE

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from the people of Val-d'Or, Senneterre and Dubuisson, opposing violence on television and in the media.

In view of the massacre at the École polytechnique in Montreal, the increase in violence in the schools—both primary and secondary—the excessive media exposure of violence, murder and rape, for all these reasons, the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to regulate the broadcast of news containing violence, the definition of violent programs and films, the sale of toys and computer programs of a violent nature, and the sale of books and comics illustrating violence.

[English]

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the residents in my constituency and in the surrounding areas continue to flood this place with petitions on the issue of child pornography. They are incensed that the justice minister is not doing anything about it.

I am very honoured today, on behalf of these people, to present another 473 names adding to the over 300,000 that have been tabled in this place for this gutless, spineless government to do something that is so fundamentally right.

FAMILIES

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition imploring the government to take no action to remove section 43 of the criminal code which, Mr. Speaker, as you realize, is that section of the criminal code that sanctions reasonable force in the disciplining of children by parents.

*  *  *

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Translation]

CANADA ELECTIONS ACT

 

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 142 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-2.

Motions numbered 106, 107, 108, 110, 124, 126, and 127 cannot be proposed to the House because they are not accompanied by the recommendation of the governor general. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice of such recommendation be given no later than the sitting day before the beginning of report stage consideration of a bill.

[English]

The other motions will be grouped for debate.

The Chair however is not yet ready to give a full ruling on the groupings of the motions and the voting patterns.

[Translation]

We can start with Group No. 1, which includes Motions numbered 1, 87 to 101, 103 to 105, 109, 111 to 123, 125, 128 to 135, 139 to 141.

 

. 1015 + -

The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes informs me he will not proceed with Motion No. 125.

[English]

The voting patterns for Group No. 1 are available at the table. The rest of the ruling will follow shortly.

[Translation]

I shall now propose motions numbered 1, 87 to 101, 103 to 105, 109, 111 to 123, 128 to 135, 139 to 141 to the House.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, in this list you failed to mention Motion No. 125. Was that intentional or was that an accident?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, I am sorry. My French probably was not up to snuff. We removed Motion No. 125. It was removed by the mover.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Far from me the idea of questioning in any way the Speaker's ruling regarding the grouping of motions, but I respectfully submit that in our opinion Motion No. 1 should have been included in a different group since all the other amendments deal with issues that are totally unrelated to the object of Motion No. 1.

I believe the Speaker deemed it appropriate to include Motion No. 1 in the same group simply because the legislation currently regards volunteer labour provided by a self-employed person during an election as a contribution, and Motion No. 1 seeks to allow a self-employed person to participate in an election campaign without such participation necessarily being regarded as a contribution.

By its very nature, this motion must absolutely be considered separate from the motions concerning contributions, reimbursements and expenses.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will respond in English to the question of my hon. colleague because other than that we will just not be able to understand my response.

We have heard the argument and it will be considered. As I mentioned earlier, this is a partial ruling. We will take that into consideration when the motion is voted upon. It may be moved into another grouping for voting purposes, but for now we will introduce it and debate it. If it is to be moved it will be moved, and that is not a promise. It will be looked at and if the motion is to be moved into another grouping for voting purposes, it will be done.

 

. 1020 + -

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand your argument and I must say that I agree up to a point. Still, I respectfully submit once again that for the purposes of the debate, this motion should be separate from the others because its object has nothing to do with that of the other motions currently contained in that group.

Consequently, it would not do justice to Motion No. 1 to consider it as part of a group that includes motions on contributions, expenses and reimbursements, since it does not deal with any of these issues. In order to seriously discuss this motion, we should deal with it separately.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): After consultation with the table officers, this is what we propose to do. We will continue as it is introduced at this time and reserve the privilege of removing it for debate purposes. We will look at it in light of the argument of the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes to find out if there is another group with which it would be more at home and reserve judgment.

However, for the purposes of right now, we would like to include it for debate in this group, reserving the right to move it later in the day. We are looking at it right now.

[Translation]

MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 1

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 39 on page 6 with the following:

      “their working hours.”

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:  

    Motion No. 87

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 370, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 43 on page 152 with the following:

    “370. (1) An eligible party becomes a registered party if its applica-”

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 88

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 370, be amended by replacing line 42 on page 152 with the following:

      “nomination has been confirmed in 12 electoral”

 

. 1025 + -

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:  

    Motion No. 89

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 370, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 5 on page 153 with the following:

      “tion to become registered becomes a registered party for the next following general election if it satisfies the requirements of subsection (1).”

Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:  

    Motion No. 90

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 372, be amended

      (a) by replacing line 34 on page 153 with the following:

      “(a) a statement, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of its assets and liabilities”

      (b) by replacing line 39 on page 153 with the following:

      “in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that contains the auditor's opinion as to”

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:  

    Motion No. 91

    That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

    Motion No. 92

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 385, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 157 with the following:

      “endorsed a candidate in at least 12 electoral”

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 93

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 385, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 157 with the following:

      “endorsed a candidat in at least 12 electoral”

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there might be disposition in the House at this time to deem all the motions in Group No. 1 as having been moved, seconded and read so that we might get on to debate, and it would obviate the need for Mr. Speaker to read for the next 10 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has moved that all the motions be deemed put and seconded. Is there consent?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is suggesting that all motions to be debated today be deemed read and seconded, or only those in Group No. 1?

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As I understand, it means that all the motions to be put in the first group are deemed to have been moved and seconded.

Is there agreement then that all the motions in Group No. 1 be deemed to have been moved and seconded, or do we continue to read each one?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:  

    Motion No. 94

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 393, be amended

      (a) by replacing line 4 on page 160 with the following:

      “(a) a statement, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of the fair market value of”

      (b) by replacing line 10 on page 160 with the following:

      “in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and containing the auditor's opinion as to”

 

. 1030 + -

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:  

    Motion No. 95

    That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

    Motion No. 96

    That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

    Motion No. 97

    That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

    Motion No. 98

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 398, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 31 on page 161 with the following:

    “398. (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall deregister a suspended party on the day on”

    Motion No. 99

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 398, be amended by deleting lines 39 to 46 on page 161 and lines 1 to 10 on page 162.

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I propose that all motions which are selected for debate now and later be deemed to have been moved, seconded and read.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has proposed that all of the motions be deemed to have been introduced, seconded and read. Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this manner?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 100

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 404, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 35 on page 165 with the following:

    “404. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), no person other than an elector is eligible to make a contribution to a registered party, to one of its trust funds, to an electoral district association, to a candidate or to a trust fund established for the election of a candidate endorsed by the registered party, but an elector shall not, in one financial year, contribute a total of more than $5,000.

    (1.1) For greater certainty, an electoral district association of a registered party, or a candidate endorsed by a registered party, may transfer contributions to the registered party.

    (2) Where a contribution is received from a contributor other than a contributor referred to in subsection (1), or where a contribution is received that is more than the limit provided for in that subsection, the chief agent of the registered party or official agent of the candidate, as the case may be, shall, within 30 days after becoming aware of the contributor's ineligibility or the fact that the contribution is more than the limit, return the contribution unused or, where the contribution is more than the limit provided for in subsection (1.1), an amount of money that is equal to the value of the part of the contribution that is more than the limit, to the contributor; or, if that is not practicable, shall pay the amount of the contribution or, in the case of a non-monetary contribution, an amount of money equal to its value or to the value of the part of the contribution that is more than the limit, to the Chief Electoral Officer who shall forward that amount to the Receiver General.”

 

. 1035 + -

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.) moved:  

    Motion No. 101

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 404, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 165 with the following:

      “(d) a foreign political party;

      (e) a foreign government or an agent of one; and

      (f) a person, organization or trust described in paragraphs 149(1)(c), (d), (f), (h), (i), (j) and (m) to (z) of the Income Tax Act.”

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 103

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 405, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 11 on page 166 with the following:

    “405. (1) No elector shall make a contribution to a registered party, to one of its trust funds, to an electoral district association, to a candidate or to a trust fund established for the election of a candidate endorsed by the registered party that comes from money, property or the services of another elector or another person or entity.”

    Motion No. 104

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 405, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 166 with the following:

    “405. (1) No person or entity shall make a contribution to a registered party, to one of its trust funds, to an electoral district association, to a candidate or to a trust fund established for the election of a candidate endorsed by the registered party that comes”

 

. 1040 + -

[English]

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 105

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 407, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 166 with the following:

      “of a person as leader of a”

Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:  

    Motion No. 109

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 409, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 37 and 38 on page 167 with the following:

      “, ayant une incapacité physique ou mentale, qui est habituellement à sa garde;”

    Motion No. 111

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 424, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 35 on page 173 with the following:

      “tered party's financial transactions;”

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 112

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 424, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 14 on page 174 with the following:

      “(a) a statement of contributions received from electors;

      (b) the number of contributors;

      (c) the name and address of each contributor who made”

[English]

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The NDP have sponsored a motion but the seconder is not in her seat. I do not think you can accept that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Thank you very much.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 113

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 424, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 174 with the following:

      “(c) subject to paragraph (c.1), the name and address of each contributor”

    Motion No. 114

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 424, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 174 the following:

      “(c.1) in the case of a numbered company that is a contributor referred to in paragraph (c), the name of the chief executive officer or president of that company;”

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 115

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 424, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 26 and 27 on page 174 with the following:

      “every contributor who made contributions of a”

 

. 1045 + -

[English]

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 116

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 424, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 174 with the following:

      “period to which the return relates, as well as, where the contributor is a numbered company, the name of the chief executive officer or president of that company, as if the”

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following more discussions I think there would be consent in relation to the Group No. 1 motions, that all the motions be deemed to have been put, seconded and read. Second, in the event that the House gets into debate on the motions in Group No. 2 today, that all the motions in Group No. 2 similarly be deemed to have been put, seconded and read. I think there would be agreement to that at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the proposal as presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Is there consent of the House to proceed in that fashion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Further to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes concerning Motion No. 1, I have again examined the scope of Motion No. 1 and I agree with the member that this motion should be voted on separately.

We will therefore begin with Group No. 1, which consists of Motion No. 1.

[English]

The other motion that the Chair has just proposed to the House will become Group No. 2 for the purpose of this debate.

For further clarity, the Chair has reviewed Motion No. 1. Motion No. 1 will be debated separately as its own group, Group No. 1. All of the other motions that were previously in Group No. 1 will now become Group No. 2.

Debate is on Group No. 1 consisting of Motion No. 1 only.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking you for your ruling. I had no doubt that, in your great wisdom, you would arrive at such a decision, which does justice to Amendment No. 1, as worded, and which provides that self-employed workers may take part in an election campaign as volunteers, just like all other Canadians and Quebecers.

 

. 1050 + -

The present wording of Bill C-2 is intended to allow people to contribute volunteer work to a candidate only outside their working hours.

This means that, if I am a carpenter, for instance, working for a company, I can go to the office of the candidate of my choice, outside working hours, and offer my time to make campaign signs. If I am a computer expert working for a computer firm, I can offer my time to the candidate of my choice, outside working hours, to work on his or her computers, and so on.

The same goes for secretaries and all other occupational groups. If someone is employed, he or she can offer to contribute time to the candidate of his or her choice. This is the very essence of a democratic system: to allow people to participate in the democratic process by promoting an option, a candidate and a political party, not just with their contributions and their votes—a point we shall come back to later—but also with their work.

However, the effect of Bill C-2 as worded is that, if I owned a small carpentry business or a small computer business in my basement, in my workshop, in the shed behind my place or in my garage and wanted to give some time to a candidate or a political party of my choice, the provisions of the existing legislation would count my volunteering my time as a monetary contribution, which would have to be included accordingly in the candidate's election report.

This means that a candidate with a fairly substantial expenditure report might have to refuse a self-employed worker volunteering his time saying “Listen, I already have a lot of money committed to this election. If you were to offer me 10 or 12 hours of work, or 8 hours of work, at your usual rate, I would exceed my permitted expenditures and would blow the budget I am allowed, so I cannot accept your services”.

This provision in the law gives rise to a glaring injustice, an unacceptable situation and creates a distinction between two categories of citizens: those who can participate in an election campaign and those who have a harder time doing so because any participation in the process will immediately be considered a contribution and will be included as such in the election report.

In my opinion, this is totally unacceptable and unjustified for the self-employed workers in our communities—and I do not mean the company presidents. Of course, there are provisions in the Elections Act which prevent the president or head of a company from delegating three of his or her employees to go and work for a candidate, without such work being deemed to be a contribution.

As I said earlier, self-employed workers in our communities, such as a small carpenter who works in a shed at the back of his house or a computer expert whose business is set up in his basement, are already adversely affected by a number of existing laws. For example, a self-employed worker is not eligible for employment insurance. There are many provisions in the current legislation that penalize independent workers. In a democratic society, it is unacceptable that legislation should deliberately create two classes of citizens.

 

. 1055 + -

The first one would include those who can freely take part in the democratic process, offer their services and ideas, and work outside their working hours to promote a cause that is dear to them or help the campaign of a candidate in whom they believe. The second group would include those citizens who cannot do that because they made the decision to contribute to economic development and growth by creating their own small businesses.

These people would be thus penalized for contributing to economic development by creating their small businesses, and this in a society that claims to be capitalistic. These entrepreneurs would be adversely affected in that they would not be allowed to take part in the election process.

In my opinion, this provision in Bill C-2 is totally unacceptable, unreasonable and discriminatory. We are deliberately discriminating, and we are maintaining this discrimination.

Therefore, I invite all members of this House to consider the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, which seeks to allow self-employed persons the possibility of doing volunteer work during an election campaign to promote a cause in which they believe or to help a candidate whom they trust, and to ensure that the volunteer contribution of these people is defined on the basis of their working hours.

Just because I am a self-employed worker does not mean I can work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We know for a fact that self-employed workers work very hard—of that there is not a shadow of a doubt. Physically, however, it is not possible for people to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are entitled to some free time for themselves.

This bill does not even make provision for these people to use their free time in political activity without its being considered a contribution and so accounted for in a candidate's expenses return.

Obviously, as I said earlier, this would mean that, if I am going to work for a candidate at 2 o'clock in the morning, say—although it is completely unreasonable to think that these are my working hours, the legislation is such that, even though I do this work at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, this must be considered a contribution and so accounted for in the expenses return.

Obviously this is nonsense. There must be a way to consider what a self-employed worker would do for a candidate, as a volunteer, outside working hours.

When I am at home, as a self-employed worker, a computer specialist, I have working hours. I tell my customers “You can usually get in touch with me between the hours of such and such”. This can be verified. The government is using specious reasoning when it says that the hours of work of a self-employed worker cannot really be verified and that there is too much room for interpretation.

When people do not want to resolve a problem, they close their eyes to solutions of any sort, or they come up with all sorts of arguments against. I have the distinct impression that, until now, the government has done its utmost to find arguments against resolving this discrimination in the bill. I have the impression that it wants to maintain the existing provisions.

I urge all my colleagues who have industrious self-employed workers in their ridings wanting to take part in the democratic process to allow them to do so by voting for this amendment.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly address the rationale lying behind Motion No. 1 introduced by the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. Lying behind the motion which would change the current wording of the bill dealing with the contribution of volunteer labour in an election campaign is an assumption that the bill provides a restriction on volunteer labour. There is no restriction on the contribution of volunteer labour. That was not the intention. The root of the hon. member's motion is actually quite good and quite honourable. It reflects the political rights that we all have in the country that are protected constitutionally. If people wish to participate and contribute to a political campaign they have the absolute right to do it.

 

. 1100 + -

The difficulty that has arisen is not in the right of the person to participate in the campaign and to contribute volunteer services, even financially, but our law in Canada has for many years put a limit on election spending, which means measuring the dollars and resources that are put into a campaign.

In this case, the amendment deals with volunteer labour and the definition of that in the statute. What the statute has to grapple with is not the goodness or badness of the contribution of volunteer labour. It is accepted that the contributions to the political process are important, good and necessary and should be facilitated. What it does address is the measurement of the value of dollars or resources that are put into a political campaign.

Our parliament has decided that it is necessary to do this so that all candidates, not just the men and women in the House, who run for office in Canada's parliament are essentially running on a level playing field financially. When we put on spending limits, it is necessary to include inputs into the campaign, including volunteer labour. If someone is employed somewhere in a routine, basic day job and decides to nail a couple of 2x4s together in the campaign office in the evening, that is fine, there is no problem. That is exempted from the calculation.

What we had to grapple with was the situation of someone who is self-employed and in the business of providing a particular service, such as a carpenter, a plumber or an electrician, who makes a contribution of that service at any point in time to the campaign. It was viewed as a possible loophole or a loose end that would make it more difficult to value input into a political campaign. Far from discriminating against the self-employed, there is no barrier to self-employed persons contributing in whatever way they like, financially or by way of services, to a campaign. However, it does require the campaign to put a value on that service. which would then become part of the election spending of the campaign.

It distinguishes between people who are employed and those who are self-employed, but we feel it is necessary to close that potential loophole so that the election race and the financing of it is on a level playing field and is fairer.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I happen to remember when this particular aspect was debated in committee. What this would basically do is actually discriminate against those people who have their own independent contracts or are self-employed.

I will take an example from my own campaign that I used while we were in committee. The example is of a fellow by the name of Mr. Erik Nielson who is a very able carpenter and has been for most of his life. There is no doubt about it that Erik was the handiest person we had on our campaign with regard to the construction of our signs. Now if Erik had been working for a large construction company, the construction of those signs would have been all right because it would have been in his off time, aside from his job if he had one with Lafarge or some other large firm. However, if Erik were to have the gumption and the wherewithal to be self-employed, to own his own company or to have some sort of independent contracting relationship set up with any other employer, he would then be docked and the campaign would be hit financially in terms of its aggregate spending limit by his involvement in the campaign.

 

. 1105 + -

This basically amounts to discrimination in setting up two categories of citizens. Those who choose to have independent contracts or run their own businesses would be discriminated against and would be hampered in terms of their effective participation in elections vis-à-vis those who choose to be employers. This could be subject to a constitutional challenge. This is a poorly worded piece of the act.

We know that various other aspects of the Canada Elections Act will be challenged in court. There are third party advocates in the country who have said that they will do so. There are numerous other court decisions, various decisions by provincial courts and appeal courts. On top of that, we have had previous decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada which have already set precedent with regard to this and will have much of this bill thrown out.

This is an example of the government trying to regulate to death the election process. I do not think it is helping democracy in doing so and it has not been clear-headed with regard to its wording of this particular aspect of the bill.

I will read a few of the different occupations that will be directly affected by discrimination against those who serve as independent contractors and against those who are self-employed and hardworking.

Campaigns make regular use of computers. Maybe it was not the case 15 or 20 years ago but it certainly is today. In my campaign I had computer programmers who offered to help us out in terms of tasks like data entry, setting up our database of determining where our signs were, where they would be going and all the rest of those things. Computer programmers will be directly affected by this type of legislation. If they are an independent contractor or if they have their own business with regard to computer programming or any aspect of computers, they will be somehow limited and the campaign will be hit particularly hard for their volunteer labour.

What about telephone solicitors? I have had the joy of dealing with a number of telephone solicitors over the years. I used to help run a phone bank. As a result of the legislation, those people who spend any part of their time working as telephone solicitors—and many people do, including many students—will be hampered and the campaigns will be hampered in terms of the use of their time.

What about people who are desktop publishers? These people, who make a living from designing publications, such as monthly newsletters for a trade publication, newspapers, bulletins, any of these types of things, whether full time or part time, will be limited in terms of their ability to help out in campaigns. The campaigns themselves will suffer an onerous financial burden and a limit restriction in terms of their ability to help.

I had the wonderful opportunity of working as a canvasser when I was a young lad. It was one of the first jobs I had and it was a good thing for me to do. It helped to develop a work ethic. I was a canvasser for the Edmonton Journal. On top of that, I was a paperboy. Not only did I deliver the paper door to door, but in the evenings I went around to solicit to the good folks of Edmonton to ask whether or not they were interested in taking a 90-day, money back subscription to the Edmonton Journal. I was about 14 years old at the time.

If at the tender age of 14 I had gone ahead and volunteered my services and helped out a candidate in some capacity, such as knocking on doors, dropping off literature or asking people how they were intending to vote on election day, I may have been restricted. On top of that restriction, the campaign I had chosen to volunteer for would have faced a financial burden. The ceiling would have artificially come down on it very quickly as a result of that. As it turns out, I volunteered shortly thereafter at the age of 16.

 

. 1110 + -

What about people who deliver flyers? They have a skill and an experience with an activity that most of us do during campaigns. It is not that I agree with his policies, but during the first world war when Lenin was smuggled from behind enemy lines to go into Russia, he wrote down that his occupation was as a pamphleteer, a flyer distributor.

All of us at some point in our electoral past, in volunteering in campaigns and our involvement in the election process, have delivered flyers door to door. Those people who do it for a living will be directly hampered by this type of legislation because it will set them aside as a separate class of citizen. When they volunteer their time to pass literature for politics in the electoral process, they will be earmarked, tagged and black-marked. Their activity will be more onerously dealt with than the activity of anyone else delivering literature.

If I, as a politician, were to drop off my own literature, that would be one thing, but a 14-year old who works on my campaign and happens to drop off literature as part of a living or who receives any form of compensation or consideration in return for doing so, would have to declare the hours. We would have to go through the expense, the time, the blood, the sweat and the tears to document this and figure out an election expense.

This seems ridiculous when one considers all of the work that would be involved. We would have to track our volunteers in terms of what they do for a living. We would have to determine what the actual costs would be. In addition to that, we would have to calculate how that relates to a spending limit for a given campaign. All of these things point to a ridiculous amount of regulation.

What about the people who do data entry. Calgary is becoming a focal point in the country with regard to banks, in particular, for the process or for the aspect of data entry in terms of banking data bases. If any of those people were to volunteer in any of my campaigns or in any one of the other 300 MPs in this place, that would form of restriction on their ability to help out in campaigns, and I do not think that makes any sense.

This is basically an example of a poorly thought out regulation, imposing not only on the opposition but on the people who would be doing the financial agents aspect for any of the government campaigns as well, a ridiculous amount of regulation that I can see absolutely no good use for.

For the sake of Mr. Nielson, for Rob Vestrum who happened to help out in my campaign in terms of his computer skills, and for Brendan Cassidy, a university student who happened to have his own business set up with regard to computer programming and some aspects of that—and my hat tips off to Brendan on that—they would have faced a restriction and an inability to work on my campaign. They would have had a black mark against them which nobody else would have had.

For that reason, I think this is a poorly worded and thought out form of regulation which has no real purpose in and of itself. It should and may be challenged in the courts with regard to perhaps the constitutional aspects of it for how it affects people, earmarks them and sets them aside based on what they do for an occupation.

Shame on government for discriminating against people based on what they choose to do for a living and on restricting their ability to participate effectively in the democratic process in electoral campaigns.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre rises to speak, I thought in report stage I would advise everybody how we would normally do this.

The proposer of the motion would be first to speak. We would then go to the government for response. We would then go to the official parties as we normally do. After the first round we will go back and forth. Generally speaking, on the second round, because it is a Bloc motion, we would give the Bloc priority to speak and then we would go to another party.

 

. 1115 + -

We will go now to the representative of the New Democratic Party and then to the Conservative Party. We will then go back to the Bloc and then to the government and then back and forth.

I would remind everyone that if there is a lot of interest, it is not obligatory for everyone to use all of their 10 minutes.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion put forward by my colleague in the Bloc, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. I support it for a number of reasons.

We are debating at report stage the rules of democracy in this country, the rules which elect members of parliament to the House of Commons. We have to be vigilant and mindful of what these rules should be providing to the people of Canada. I believe there are five cornerstones to the rules which elect members of parliament in this country.

The first is transparency. In this bill we have to ensure that there is transparency in all transactions which Canadians are involved in when it comes to electing members of parliament.

Second, I believe that Bill C-2 and the rules for elections have to be accountable. There has to be accountability of all members from all political parties and in particular the Government of Canada.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to pay attention to these five points because I want to make a point with respect to Motion No. 1.

The third cornerstone of the election rules in my view is inclusivity, to include as many people in this country as possible in the process. We should not exclude people.

The fourth cornerstone we have to be mindful of in preparing this very important document is accessibility. We have to make elections and political parties accessible to Canadians and we have to make the House of Commons accessible to Canadians.

The fifth cornerstone is one of the most important ones, which is responsibility. As members of parliament we are responsible for establishing rules concerning the election of members of parliament in the fairest possible way.

With respect to this motion, I want to make a couple of points. I believe this motion is exclusive, not inclusive. It is excluding a significant proportion of our population in the democratic process, namely election campaigns. It is excluding them because much to everyone's surprise, the number of self-employed people in this country is rising at a very rapid rate. As of last year, 27% of working Canadians were either classed as self-employed or contract workers.

We know the Liberal government in Ottawa, the Conservative government in Ontario as well as the other Liberal and Tory governments around the country have their primary focus on reducing the size of government, to privatize various assets and crown corporations. Lo and behold when we privatize we encourage contract work and self-employment.

This amendment, if it is not carried through, will exclude as of 1998, 27% of working Canadians because it is almost impossible to include these self-employed people as costs to election campaigns still come under the very tight and honourable ceilings of election expenditures.

I am asking the parliamentary secretary and the Liberal government to reconsider because one of the five fundamental cornerstones is at risk. I am talking about inclusivity. We are potentially excluding 27% of Canadians from participating in election campaigns.

We have had great examples from my colleagues in the Bloc and the Reform Party about the kinds of people who are going to be excluded. I would like to add a few more. For example, Canada Post employees who deliver the mail deliver pamphlets. There are examples of the pamphlets here. I was quite surprised and shocked to hear the Reform Party make reference to Vladimir Lenin in this House of Commons. It is a good example and I thought it was quite colourful. I am not sure that it is relevant right now.

 

. 1120 + -

The point is that all kinds of occupations now have self-employed contract employees. They will be restricted in terms of participating in election campaigns. The government may say they are not going to be restricted, that they just have to claim their services as expenses.

If we look at the people who are involved in our campaigns, they are basically average Canadians who want to see good members of parliament elected. Whether they are successful or not is not important. What is important is the fact that they are now going to be charged or levied for contributing their skills which are very important.

There is a mailman in my riding who works for me during elections. I will not name him because he is a privatized crown corporation employee. He delivers the mail and when election campaigns happen, he delivers pamphlets. Now we will have to allocate his time for an election expense. This means we are going to have to look at other ways to get elected within the budgets that are provided to us.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary could answer some questions relating to this issue. Why does he want to exclude potentially 27% of employed Canadians from the electoral process? Why does he not support this amendment which would make it more inclusive?

The amendment would also make the elections expenditures more accountable. They would be more accountable because we are able to track more readily the itemized expenditures we have agreed to in C-2 that result in election expenditures.

How are we going to police, monitor and keep track of all the individuals in the 301 ridings who have certain skills and items they want to contribute in terms of their capabilities? How are we going to police that to make sure we have fairness in all constituencies? It is almost impossible to police when there are about 12 registered parties in the country, each with a number of volunteers.

I am very concerned about this particular section. I support the amendment which would include self-employed people such as average ordinary Canadians when it comes to election expenses. I would ask the parliamentary secretary or at least one of his colleagues on the government side to respond to my questions.

Some people cannot always contribute money. Some people have to contribute their skills. For example, if a plug has to be fixed and an electrician friend does it during the campaign, how do we monitor that? How do we time it? Do we use union hourly wages? Do we use contract hourly wages? Do we use Manitoba expenses? Is it more expensive to hire an electrician in British Columbia than it is in Saskatchewan? I would venture to say that it is. Is it more expensive to hire a plumber in Toronto than it is in Kapuskasing? I would expect it is. It puts ridings that have ceilings of approximately $60,000 at a disadvantage if they happen to be in a larger centre where the cost of labour is higher.

This section as it is unamended is the most bureaucratic red tape section of the entire bill. It is unaccountable and irresponsible. I think it is exclusive as opposed to inclusive.

I would ask the government, the parliamentary secretary and the deputy whip to consider supporting this amendment which would include more people. I support the amendment. I hope the government will reconsider.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that it is sometimes difficult for certain parties to collect funds, while for others, the problem is finding workers.

As far as funding is concerned, I am aware that this is easier for some parties, so much so that the Minister for International Trade forgot to include enormous sums in his reporting. For other MPs or candidates with convictions, with a societal project, this seems to suit a large part of their electorate and more volunteers are offering their services. Obviously, a political party that does not have much to offer people finds it far harder to get people to donate unpaid work.

 

. 1125 + -

The bill before us, Bill C-2, which is a total rewrite of the Canada Elections Act and all of its underlying principles, constitutes an attack on volunteer work, since a person who is self-employed and wishes to offer services in his field to his party in order to support his political beliefs cannot do so.

A number of examples have been given this morning. I prefer to ask a number of questions.

If, for example, during the campaign for the byelection in the electoral district of Sherbrooke, certain ministers spent whole days drumming up votes, was there a possibility of counting the real time they spent and their travel expenses on behalf of Bob Pouliot? Of course not. Yet these were political professionals, and they were on the spot in Sherbrooke, hundreds of kilometres from their places of residence, campaigning for the Liberal candidate. Yet their travel time and their expenses were not counted in, nor was the time they devoted to Bob Pouliot.

If, for example, there were a self-employed carpenter in my riding, he could not come and make my 4-by-8 signs. However, another carpenter who works for someone else can come and make them, and install them along the roadways.

I ask myself, is this in keeping with the charter of rights and freedoms? Probably, the first, who is imaginative enough to invest a few dollars to find out what a judge thinks, will no doubt get the clause we are talking about discredited, the clause in which a self-employed worker cannot work for a political party without having his costs recorded, and at full price for sure.

This brings me to the subject of loans or gifts. I am reading from an affidavit duly taken by a justice of the peace during the last election, in 1997. It refers to a certain Louis-Philippe Rochon. I am not sure whether it was out of conviction, but apparently this person gave $10,000 to the Liberal Party and in addition provided three limousines with drivers. Were the chauffeurs accounted for? Was the real cost of the limousines used by the Minister for International Trade included in his election expenses? I would be surprised.

In addition, a bus was provided to criss-cross the riding of our venerable Minister for International Trade. Was the cost of that, the real cost of a bus travelling around the riding carrying great billboards praising the Minister for International Trade, included in the accounts? I would be surprised about that too.

According to the affidavit, Louis-Philippe Rochon acknowledges having paid $10,000 and that his wife at the time, Patricia Thériault, subsequently obtained a job at an annual salary of $90,000.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the issue of relevance, the member is reading from an affidavit taken from a civil process somewhere in the country. He will recall that we are debating the Group No. 1 amendment to the elections act. I am quite certain the affidavit he is reading has absolutely nothing to do with the Group No. 1 amendment that we are dealing with.

 

. 1130 + -

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was not paying attention to the debate, so I am going to have to rely upon the good graces of all members involved to be relevant. I take that under advisement and I will be paying much closer attention to the remainder of the debate because at report stage relevancy is an important part of the debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the parliamentary secretary was particularly harsh in his assessment of my colleague's speech. He did not even give him an opportunity to develop his point of view and make his argument.

I respectfully submit that if the Chair wishes to be able to judge the relevance of remarks made with respect to the proposed amendment, my colleague must be allowed to develop his argument in order to make the relevant point.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I said that I was not paying attention and therefore I could not judge, and that it was up to members to keep themselves relevant. I admonish all members, because we are at report stage, to please be relevant.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this morning we are here debating the very foundations of democracy. In Canada, we have espoused British democracy, which is apparently the finest in the world. And the very foundation of that democracy is participation in elections. Getting a candidate elected takes men and women of conviction.

I was in the process of developing my argument with respect to the Minister for International Trade, who has wonderful convictions and who accepted generous contributions that he then forgot to mention. Was it out of conviction that Mr. Rochon contributed $10,000 to the minister's campaign fund, or self-interest? That is the question. The parliamentary secretary is very thin-skinned on the topic of democracy. Why did he not rise in his place when the Prime Minister was talking about 60% plus one?

Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of orders. I remind the Bloc Quebecois member that the minister said that the amount was $1,000 and that it was declared. The member is imputing motives. The minister clearly said he received $1,000. I ask that the member stop talking about this and deal instead with the bill.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is debate. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, this is the second time I have raised it. We are now bantering about the issue of a cash contribution to a campaign. The subject matter concerns volunteer labour in a campaign. That is the subject we should be debating.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Because Group No. 1 has one motion it is fairly straightforward as to whether or not people are being relevant. When we get into other groups it will be much more difficult to be closely confined.

As it happens, I was just conferring with the clerk and the clerk and I both agreed that the member for Frontenac—Mégantic was being relevant.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, members will have noticed that the member for Beauce is also very touchy.

This reminds me of the good old days when Fabien Roy, the hon. member for Beauce at the time, was sitting in this House. He used to rise to condemn the trickery and the dishonesty of these old parties that not only have no convictions, but that are also, at times, on the verge—and I emphasize the expression on the verge—of being dishonest. I hope my comment is not unparliamentary.

 

. 1135 + -

Why is the member for Beauce rising in the House this morning? Because he does not know what it is to belong to a party that is guided by deep convictions instead of money, or to find a job for one's wife or one's children. The hon. member occupies the seat of a former independent member of parliament who once sat as a conservative. In order to vacate that seat and get the hon. member to sit here, the Prime Minister appointed the former member for Beauce ambassador to Port-au-Prince.

Why does the member, who is so touchy, not rise on a point of order now? He is well aware that he owes his riding to the Prime Minister. Everyone knows that he got it because the Prime Minister appointed the former member for Beauce ambassador to Port-au-Prince. Everybody in Beauce knows—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. This is a very interesting debate, but it is not relevant. The hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic has one minute left to debate the motion.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, you will have realized that the member for Beauce got me a little upset.

I want to go back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. We simply want to ensure that a voter, whether he is self-employed or not, whether he is working or not, can do volunteer work to help the candidate of his choice, whether that person is a Liberal, a Conservative, a Bloquiste or a Reformer.

We are well aware that one person equals one vote. The Liberals made a clear demonstration of that in the riding of Anjou. The same person voted 12 times for $10 each time, or a total of $120. The member for Beauce is not raising a question of privilege. He is not very thick-skinned.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, the member from the Bloc Quebecois raises several issues that he should submit to headquarters in Quebec City. They have roughly the same problem.

During an election campaign, limousines are everywhere. The ministers make all sorts of announcements at the political level. When he talks about votes being bought, I would like him to go back to the referendum, as the fate of a country is involved, and see what they did. If I were the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, I would be ashamed to suggest things like that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. We are dealing with Motion No. 1 only. We are debating Motion No. 1.

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:  

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

 

. 1140 + -

[English]

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions in Group No. 2 have been moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 87 to 101, 103 to 105, 111 to 123, 128 to 135 and 139 to 141.

The Chair wishes to inform the House that after careful review Motions Nos. 102 and 109 will now be included in Group No. 2 for the purposes of debate and voting.

Pursuant to the motion adopted earlier today, these motions are deemed to have been moved, seconded and read.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During your earlier discourse and groupings you indicated that Motion No. 109 was part of Group No. 2. I am wondering what happened to Motion No. 109.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. In error, Motion No. 109 was omitted. Motion No. 109 is part of Group No. 2.

MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT

Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:  

    Motion No. 102

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 405, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 7 on page 166 with the following:

      “enregistré, à une fiducie constituée pour”

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:  

    Motion No. 109

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 409, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 37 and 38 on page 167 with the following:

      “, ayant une incapacité physique ou mentale, qui est habituellement à sa garde;”

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 117

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 425, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 41 on page 175 with the following:

      “(a) the contributor is not an elector; or”

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 118

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 425, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 175 with the following:

      “in paragraph 424(2)(c) or the name of the chief executive officer or president of a contributor referred to in paragraph 424(2)(c.1) is not known.”

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 119

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 428, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 20 on page 177 with the following:

      “(a) a statement of contributions received from electors;

      (b) the number of contributors;

      (c) the name and address of each contributor who made”

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 120

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 428, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 177 with the following:

      “(c) subject to paragraph (c.1), the name and address of each contributor”

    Motion No. 121

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 428, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 177 the following:

      “(c.1) in the case of a numbered company that is a contributor referred to in paragraph (c), the name of the chief executive officer or president of that company;”

Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:  

    Motion No. 122

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 428, be amended

      (a) by replacing, in the English version, line 30 on page 177 with the following:

      “ly accepted accounting principles, of the”

      (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 34 on page 177 with the following:

      “ly accepted accounting principles, of”

    Motion No. 123

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 430, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 178 with the following:

      “on general election expenses in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall make”

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:  

    Motion No. 128

    That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 185 the following new clause:

    “442.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, after making the calculation referred to in subsection 442(1) and before the issuing of the writ for the election next following that calculation, calculate the final maximum amount referred to in section 440 for each electoral district for that election period.

    (2) The final maximum amount for an electoral district calculated under subsection (1) must be sent

      (a) to any person on request; and

      (b) without delay to the member and each registered party that endorsed a candidate in the electoral district in the last election, together with the copy of the lists of electors referred to in subsection 45(1).

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 129

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 451, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 43 on page 189 and lines 1 and 2 on page 190 with the following:

      “(f) a statement of contributions received from electors;

      (g) the number of contributors;

      (h) the name and address of each contributor who”

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 130

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 451, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 190 with the following:

      “(h) subject to paragraph (h.1), the name and address of each contribu-”

    Motion No. 131

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 451, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 190 the following:

      “(h.1) in the case of a numbered company that is a contributor referred to in paragraph (h), the name of the chief executive officer or president of that company;”

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 132

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 451, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 16 and 17 on page 190 with the following:

      “address of every contributor who made contributions of”

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 133

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 451, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 190 with the following:

      “the return relates, as well as, where the contributor is a numbered company, the name of the chief executive officer or president of that company, as if those contributions”

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 134

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 452, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 21 on page 191 with the following:

      “(a) the contributor is not an elector; and”

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP) moved:  

    Motion No. 135

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 452, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 191 with the following:

      “in paragraph 451(2)(h) or the name of the chief executive officer or president of a contributor referred to in paragraph 451(2)(h.1) is not known.”

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:  

    Motion No. 139

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 560, be amended

      (a) by replacing line 38 on page 244 with the following:

    “(3) Subject to subsection (3.01), there may be deducted from the tax”

      (b) by adding after line 22 on page 245 the following:

    “(3.01) Where a taxpayer has made a monetary contribution in the year to a registered party or to a candidate whose nomination has been confirmed in an election of a member or members to serve in the House of Commons of Canada and the taxpayer cannot deduct the monetary contribution under that subsection because there was no income tax payable by the taxpayer in the year, the taxpayer is entitled to receive a refund, in respect of the monetary contribution corresponding to an amount calculated in accordance with the formula set out in paragraphs (3)(a) to (c), provided the taxpayer has filed a receipt in respect of each monetary contribution with the Minister as required under subsection (3).”

    Motion No. 140

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 560, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 246 with the following:

    “(4) In subsections (3), (3.01), (3.1), (3.2) and (4.1),”

    Motion No. 141

    That Bill C-2, in Clause 560, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 246 with the following:

    “(4.1) In subsections (3), (3.01), (3.1), (3.2) and”

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my amendment proposes to add to clause 404, which is the part of the act that deals with those organizations that are ineligible to make a political contribution. My amendment adds after paragraph 404(1)(e) a new category as an ineligible organization for contribution, and it reads “(f) a person, organization, trust described in paragraphs 149(1)(c), (d), (f), (h), (i), (j) and (m) to (z) of the Income Tax Act”.

Mr. Speaker, the theme of my amendment is that those organizations that are exempt from tax should not be making political contributions to partisan politics, and the reference to the Income Tax Act is very specific because it deals with particular bodies. For instance, 149(1)(c) deals with municipal authorities which are tax exempt under the Income Tax Act.

I propose that municipal bodies should not be contributing to political parties. I believe actually that this is a new issue and it is not otherwise described in law, the prohibition for municipal bodies contributing to political parties. This is new and it comes up as a result of Elections Canada now being able to list donations on the Internet. Having reviewed the list of contributions to political parties on the Internet recently, a number of municipalities turned up as contributing to political parties. Mr. Speaker, that should be our first prohibition under my amendment.

Another one is 149(1)(d), which is corporations owned by the crown under the Income Tax Act. There have been incidents in the past, Mr. Speaker, where crown corporations have contributed, admittedly small sums, but they have contributed to political parties and campaigns. Again, obviously this is unacceptable because crown corporations are, in essence, agencies of the government and the government should in no way be contributing directly or indirectly to political parties.

 

. 1145 + -

The government has, through treasury board, issued a directive to crown corporations and agencies suggesting that they not contribute to political parties. However, because crown agencies are independent bodies there is at least some debate about whether this order from treasury board to the crown agencies really has force, any force beyond being merely a suggestion.

By actually making this an organization that is ineligible under the bill then we make sure that crown corporations cannot contribute to political parties, and that includes all crown agencies. There are various types of crown agencies.

The next category is 149(1)(f). This is registered charities. I think we would all agree that it is extremely inappropriate for charities to be contributing to political parties. Again, because Elections Canada is able to give us an electronic readout of contributions, we have seen certain charities have been contributing. In fact this is prohibited under the Income Tax Act and I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to subsection 149.1(6.1). That specifically states that charities are not to contribute to political parties.

However, the difficulty is if we do not put this actually in the Canada Elections Act then Elections Canada will not be automatically monitoring when donations do come from charities. I suggest that by putting it in the Canada Elections Act, Elections Canada will automatically bounce any donation that comes from a charity. Indeed, because of electronic databases this can be done primarily automatically.

If we do not put charities as ineligible organizations under clause 404 of Bill C-2 then we run the risk of charitable donations creeping into election campaigns and political parties without having a proper check on it. This is I think the province of Elections Canada.

The other organizations that I list in my amendment are 149(1)(h) which is universities and colleges. Of course we should believe that universities and colleges should maintain absolutely their non-partisan nature and certainly should have no business contributing to political parties, but again we saw as a result of this list produced by Elections Canada recently that some universities have been contributing to political parties.

I suggest that what is actually happening is that the senior officials of universities and hospitals, and charities for that matter, are going to fundraising dinners. Instead of paying for the tickets out of their own pockets, they are charging them to their parent organizations.

We are not talking about a lot of money here, but we are talking about some fundamental ethics and decency, if you will, Mr. Speaker. Surely university officials, hospital officials or charity officials, some of whom earn more than the Prime Minister—and we know this because some of their salaries are open to us—can pay for attendance at fundraising dinners out of their pockets and they do not have to charge it to their expenses and charge it to the charity or university. That is covered off there.

The rest of the citations from the Income Tax Act, subsections 149(1)(i), (j), and others pertain primarily to non-profit housing corporations, pension funds and trusts.

I should note however in passing that in my amendment I did not include labour organizations and I did not include all non-profit organizations, even though these two types of organizations do enjoy tax exempt status. The reason for doing so, at least at this point of time, is that at least one party in the House is very reliant on labour organizations to support it politically.

I think in the interest of maintaining balance of opportunity among all the political parties, so long as we do accept that private corporations can contribute to political parties—and I think this is a good thing because they are answerable to their shareholders—then we should also accept that labour organizations should be able to contribute to political parties, because indeed they are at least answerable to their memberships.

 

. 1150 + -

Having said that, I hope to have the support of the House. I hope to have the support of the government and the opposition parties, and I do believe that this is a good amendment.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are starting today the debate on clauses that were received and considered in committee. Many amendments were brought in by the various opposition parties, and I had quite naively thought that, for this debate on a piece of legislation as important as the Canada Elections Act, the government show openness and willingness to bring democracy into the third millennium.

Exceptionally, we had an amendment that has constituted the first group, and we have seen very quickly where the government stands. I think this is extremely sad for the democratic process that is an elections act.

The Canada Elections Act has been revised with relative thoroughness and contains several dozens of chapters. The chapter whose consideration we are undertaking today deals with the financing of political parties.

We know that money is the lifeblood of any business, and as such is essential to an election campaign, because voters must of course know what the platforms of the various parties are. We know that, right now, the way to keep informed is through television or newspapers.

The current act allows, promotes, incites and encourages donations by large businesses to such a point that there is no limit. Quebec is a different society, and we are also different in our understanding of the financing of political parties. In Quebec, since the late 1970s, thanks to a sovereignist government, financing is really financing by the people. It is the voter who has the right to contribute to a political party.

The Liberal government is still very far from that view. However, everyone acknowledges that what is going on in Quebec is something extraordinary. We would have liked to have seen some desire to change, but we have not. They are carefully preserving the long history of funding that is more or less ethical, more or less moral, and some places more or less legitimate, because it is within the law. One could spend a good deal of time on differentiating between legitimacy and legality.

I will remind hon. members of a very recent example. A few days or weeks ago here in the House, reference was made to the campaign contributions to a member elected with a strong majority, which were apparently not declared.

The current act is organized in such a way that, when notice of this was given to the Chief Electoral Officer, the response was “Well, you know, it is too late. It has been 18 months.” In my humble opinion, 18 months is not long enough to forget actions that may be described as, or that appear to be, perhaps highly immoral. Eighteen months is not enough.

This case involved $10,000 but it could just as easily have been $100,000 or $200,000. We are very well aware that a party with an eye on gaining power attracts major corporations who want to be able to control the government kindly but very firmly.

 

. 1155 + -

Personally, I regret that this government has not seen fit to amend this way of doing things, and to tell itself that this law must be respected by everyone, that no one is above the law, and that the difference between innocence and guilt is not related to the time it takes to discover that something untoward has occurred.

The Bloc Quebecois position is very clear as far as funding is concerned. We believe it is the voters who must finance their political parties. We believe that corporate donations ought at the very least to be limited and, obviously, made very public and very visible, so that the public can be properly informed about who is bankrolling the political parties. One hopes the public will draw the proper conclusions for itself.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is a good example of how this legislation, seen as a priority by the government, is assessed and analyzed superficially.

We have experienced the same thing in committee. The opposition parties all tried to work constructively since the government had made it a priority.

I felt that, if we won in the last election, it would certainly be possible to win again in the next election in Chicoutimi with the existing law. However, the government decided it was important and made it a priority.

I thought we would work seriously. I must say I much admire my colleagues in the opposition parties. Everyone gave their 90%. I will not say 100%, because it is absolutely impossible to attend 100% of the meetings.

I saw with my own eyes the hard work done by my opposition colleagues. What was the end result? A few technical amendments were adopted. We just heard a speech on the issue of political party financing. In committee, we had agreed that it was important to review the issue of political party financing, but not superficially. In our meetings, the Bloc, the NDP, the Reform Party and we in the Progressive Conservative Party agreed that this could be done. Our progressiveness must never be forgotten. We have demonstrated in the past that we are truly a progressive party.

This was not well received. In committee, I said “Unfortunately, everything is going so fast that we cannot do a good job.” Like our ancestors used to say “Let us give the sheep time to graze”. In other words, let us take time to reflect seriously about all the aspects of the issue. This takes time. It cannot be done in a flash. But the answer was no.

I should hope that the committee that examined the Elections Act will take a very serious and close look at the whole issue of the financing of national political parties.

Naturally, we tend to use Quebec's process as a model for Canada. I just want to say that, yes, it should be used as a model, but along with national analyses, parameters and criteria that will help determine whether such and such part of the Quebec legislation ought be included in the Canadian legislation.

Who knows, maybe Canadians would be willing to pay more in order to ensure a little more that democracy in Canada is protected against obscure groups and financiers with sometimes fishy agendas.

 

. 1200 + -

This is an aspect that should be examined by the committee, which could draw inspiration from the Quebec act and apply it maybe a little differently. It is my understanding that a federal election costs close to $30 million. Perhaps, after a consensus is reached in this House, the government should say “Instead of all political parties having to provide the funding necessary for an electoral campaign, the Canadian public at large may be willing to contribute more”.

At any rate, it is an issue which we definitely did not have time to look into. It makes for a botched job.

It is funny that the government would consider the bill on electoral reform a high priority, knowing how superficial a job was done. My colleagues proposed motions that were discussed and defeated in committee except for a few technical changes. The government showed its true colours. The reform will be superficial and purely technical in nature. Of course, we, on our side, have other priorities.

Now that progressive conservative measures like free trade and the GST—which will bring $24 billion in revenues—have helped it get rich, the government could introduce legislation to fight poverty. Apparently, the unemployment rate is declining. Obviously, it is declining while the welfare rate is increasing.

The EI legislation has become inaccessible, so much so that two thirds of Canadian workers now have to depend on social programs. This is why child poverty increased by 50% in the last four or five years. Our party has a committee on poverty and I can assure you that we will come up with progressive measures to fight poverty and it will not be another little program nobody knows anything about and to which potential beneficiaries do not even have access.

The government will argue that it has put $500 million in such and such program. But I ask that the auditor general check out these new programs the government is investing in. I am sure that no money is actually spent because people do not register. We hear that there are other priorities, right now, in Canada besides reforming the Elections Act, which is already very democratic. It will become less democratic with the proposed changes, however.

It is outrageous. The government even wants to control interventions by third party groups. Not the political parties, not the candidates, but lobby groups. The government wants to manage them in order to subject them to certain major criteria and constraints. They do not even have the resources for a pro forma budget. These little groups collect money in dribs and drabs so they can express their viewpoint to the government and the opposition parties. The government is so keen on controlling them that their action will become pointless and without consequence.

The government wants to control the polls. They are, as we know, snapshots taken at a specific point in time. The government knows very well that there is no point in getting distressed at the effects politics can have on the polls. That changes nothing at all. In a national campaign, 90% to 95% of the votes are cast for the leaders. In the next election, we hope that these votes for the leader will go to the Progressive Conservative Party.

What interests us as a party is not control over the polls. What interests us is not control over lobby groups that have a little money collected with difficulty in order to run municipal, provincial and national campaigns to influence national policy.

The government has not succeeded in clarifying this law. One of its purposes was to make the legislation more transparent. It consulted experts. The legislation will be even more muddled than it was. It will be harder to get things clarified than it is with the present law.

 

. 1205 + -

I think that one of the main objectives is to sow confusion, to control media coverage of polls and to further control those groups that traditionally bother governments. And if the government establishes very strict budget requirements for them, it will achieve its goal.

I would like to say that I am sure the government is in a pre-election mode. This is evident from its intentions, in polarizing the vote in the country and trying to give the impression to English Canada that it can blackball Quebec. I certainly hope that our English speaking colleagues will not be as gullible as the government thinks they are, and that they will understand that the present government has decided for a variety of reasons to ignore the wishes of Quebecers in this bill, and perhaps also in a bill setting out the framework for a referendum.

At this time in Canada, there are many priorities other than the setting of conditions for referendums, especially with the latest supreme court decision. We do not need a bill that is nothing but further provocation. This kind of provocation, which has been going on for 30 years has had good results—and I will explain this—because the percentage of Quebecers who want to sever the ties with the federal government has increased from 20% to 49%. The federal government tends to rely on provocation instead of trying to bring about reconciliation between all citizens.

Quebecers are sending positive signals. Just like all Canadians, they want the provincial and federal governments to co-operate and pool their resources in order to deal with problems like poverty. About 5 or 6 million Canadians live in poverty. But we are ending up with all kinds of insignificant little programs, very often federal programs, whose benefits are then deducted from provincial benefits. The government should deal with concrete problems—

The Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.

[English]

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the House that this bill is one of the more disappointing ones for me. When one enters this place, these supposedly hallowed halls, one thinks that this is about democracy, process and preserving that. In seeing the passage of this bill and the government's attitude toward it, I have come to deeply question a lot of those things.

There is a saying in politics that nothing moves unless it is pushed. The question comes down to, why does the government continue to push just this type of legislation? What is its rationale? What is at the crux of it?

The legislation deals with a lot of things. It deals with patronage in the appointment of positions. It fails to deal with a subject near and dear to my heart, that of Senate elections. It likes to black out or to ban advertising at certain times. It wants to restrict what can happen with regard to the release of polling data. It puts restrictions on third party spending and therefore stifles freedom of speech and the ability to participate in the process.

It changes the requirements for what is to be considered a registered party. It thereby disenfranchises many of the parties that are not in this place but nonetheless do represent Canadians across the country. I will go on about that in a while.

It also fails to address the whole aspect of government advertising and the government using taxpayers' funds to prop itself up and to provide money to its own coffers.

It does not do an adequate job of dealing with the whole issue of the timing of byelections. It deals with the calling of the byelections but fails to deal with holding the byelections and when exactly that is going to happen.

I do not think it does fair justice to taxpayers in terms of the subsidies provided by the taxpayers to political parties and to the electoral process. It has a direct conflict and a contradiction, a hypocrisy in terms of how it deals with candidate deposits vis-à-vis spending limits.

 

. 1210 + -

It also fails to come through with any type of fixed election date.

Those are just some of the things. I have a number of problems with this bill and I will touch on a few of them in some depth. So far it has been in committee and out of the public spotlight. It has had no significant amendments, and here it is today.

Traditionally in the past, elections acts have been changed with political neutrality. They have been supported by the public, the chief electoral officer and all parties in the House. This act fails on all those counts.

It has already been struck down by the courts. Many aspects of this legislation have been struck down in provincial courts and by the Supreme Court of Canada, yet the government continues to push forward the legislation. Once again I raise the question of why the government is adamant on pushing this. I want folks back at home to think about that very carefully.

It is ignoring the decisions of the appeal courts and the Supreme Court of Canada. It makes me wonder. It is okay for the courts to make child pornography legal in British Columbia and to allow access to the fisheries according to Indian status, but it is not allowing the courts to touch the provisions of the elections act that favour the ruling party. There are profound problems with that.

I will go into a number of detailed areas of the bill that I think are particularly egregious.

There is the whole idea of patronage. The opposition put forward a number of amendments to go ahead and hire people for various electoral offices based on merit. Right now it is done on patronage. Part of the problem with that is that when we teach emerging nations on how they should conduct their elections, we advise them not to use patronage as part of their system because we recognize problems with it. When we go abroad that is exactly what we do. We have perpetuated that sick system.

The government came out against it with the McGrath report and offered other things when the Liberals were the official opposition. However they did not pass it when they became the government.

Instead of creating a level playing field the government has restricted the ability of any person or group to counter government propaganda during an election. It has placed very tight restrictions on the ability of people to have freedom of speech during elections, to give them mere pennies on the dollar for what registered political parties can say during elections. It is not the government's place to restrict freedom of speech during elections. Why should the government have the ability to tell any individual with their individual convictions how much that individual can or cannot spend during an election campaign?

While the government says on the one hand that it wants to be inclusive by placing restrictions on how much parties can spend in a given process and by trying to regulate it to death as I have alluded to with regard to the motions, it goes ahead and puts all sorts of onerous regulations, problems, barriers and roadblocks to the participation of parties that are not in this place. Those parties would be the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Communist Party of Canada, the Marxist-Leninists, the Green Party, the Natural Law Party and for that matter the Rhinoceros Party, the National Party, and I could go on. A number of parties are being restricted.

A candidate rule that would have been acceptable and which probably would have had all-party support in this place would have been one which had 12 candidates represented in the election to be registered as an official party. Indeed 12 is the number that we use in the House of Commons to determine whether or not a party has status.

 

. 1215 + -

Instead the government has upped the ante to try to make it a 50 candidate rule, which it knows will exempt many political parties that attempt to field a full slate of candidates from being able to even have their party's name appear next to their candidates name on the ballot. These people will now all be determined as independents. That is a shame, because it is for the purpose of the voters that these things are done, so that they know who John Smith is and whom he represents, what party or affiliation he is connected to.

The government is going ahead and stymieing that. Shame on the Liberals. They talk a good line about inclusiveness but that is not what is happening here. They are restricting the ability of voters to know who is on the ballot and what their affiliations are. It is a real pity.

I pose this question for the folks back at home. Why has the government done the things it has done with the elections act? It is to limit competition on the ballot. That is the sick thing. One would think that a party which prides itself on being a natural governing party, having been around as long as it has been, knowing all the tricks of the trade and pulling them regularly, that it would be able to hack competition, that it would be all right with it, but it is not.

In other countries with proportional representation such as Australia, Switzerland and many others I could name, they have a choice. They can choose from anywhere up to 35 parties on the ballot. That is democracy. Voters should be able to make those determinations, but the Liberal government is fearful of that so it wants to restrict the number of people appearing on ballots.

We tried to introduce formal competitions into many of these processes. We wanted the people in charge of our election process to be determined by their ability, their experience and their impartiality. Yet that is not what is happening with this law. We made many amendments but they were turned down.

With regard to the reimbursement of a party's election expenses, the blue book of the Reform Party states that the Reform Party opposes any assistance to political parties and political lobbies from public funds. I am happy to see one member stand and make a suggestion with regard to the prohibition for crown corporations, for various government agencies and so on, to go ahead and fund the political process.

There are many things I could touch upon with regard to the bill. Needless to say the bill is flawed. It will be turned down in the courts. The government should be ashamed for bringing it forward in this place.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, better known as the Canada Elections Act. I am also pleased to speak to this bill as a Bloc Quebecois member, because my party has proposed amendments that would improve the legislation.

When I heard that a reform of the Canada Elections Act was in the works, I was glad, because I thought the government would use the opportunity to overhaul the elections legislation, as Quebec did in 1977, so that campaigns would be funded by the people. It could also have followed Quebec's lead and adopted a process of public competition for the appointment of the main election officials. But, no, the government prefers to keep its system of appointing the particular election officials it wishes.

This is not the first time I have been disappointed in this party. I come back to the primary reason the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-2, which has to do with how parties get their campaign funds.

 

. 1220 + -

Letting a corporation fund a candidate's campaign and not setting a ceiling on contributions gives that corporation a great deal of influence. There is no doubt that large contributions give it a bit more power, a bit more visibility, a bit more influence, and it would be naive to think otherwise.

The result is that the big parties, which are funded by big companies, are always ahead of the game. By way of explanation for the Bloc Quebecois' amendment with respect to funding, I would draw the attention of members to an excerpt of clause 424(2) concerning the contents of a party's return.

As it reads at present, a financial transactions return must set out:

      (a) statement of contributions to the party received from individuals, businesses, commercial organizations, governments, trade unions, corporations without share capital other than trade unions, and unincorporated organizations or associations other than trade unions;

This is just the opposite of the transparency the government wanted to have. Speaking of transparency, one would also have to address the famous trusts that can be set up by individuals, companies, commercial organizations, governments, trade unions, corporations without share capital other than trade unions, and unincorporated organizations or associations other than trade unions.

This represents a fair number of people, especially when the time comes to register the contribution, and all these fine folk will be put in the financial return as—this is the important point—Trust No. X. This is not the greatest transparency we have ever seen.

I repeat, why did they not follow Quebec's example? Only an individual qualified as a voter may make a financial contribution to a party.

The Bloc Quebecois members have long been calling for a reform of the federal elections act. As far back as 1994, a motion was moved limiting the right to contribute to a political party to individuals, with a limit of $5,000.

Grassroots funding of political parties was again put on the agenda by the Bloc Quebecois on the first opposition day of the 36th Parliament, in 1997. The motion was worded as follows:

    That this House condemn the attitude of the government, which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of federal political parties even though the existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.

Members can imagine my party's disappointment when we saw that reform. Practically nothing had changed. To me, a reform implies a noticeable improvement of an act. This is obviously not the case here.

The Bloc Quebecois is very disappointed with the financing of political parties, as it is provided under Bill C-2. We are also disappointed with the appointment process for returning officers, particularly the chief electoral officer. These are very important positions. Returning officers are the guardians of the democratic process society prides itself on.

The chief electoral officer is responsible for the implementation of the elections act. The fact that he is appointed by the party in office creates a serious problem.

 

. 1225 + -

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing an amendment to clause 13, so that the chief electoral officer is appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons approved by a majority of members from all opposition parties. The chief electoral officer could also be dismissed for valid reasons, through a similar resolution. Such a process would ensure greater impartiality on the part of the chief electoral officer.

As for returning officers, the Bloc Quebecois is proposing that they be appointed through an open competition, as is the case in Quebec and in other provinces. This would ensure that candidates are selected on the basis of their qualifications and not because they have some experience with the party in office. Is this not one of the principles of democracy?

In conclusion, I would point out that the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-2. I thought that, after all the consultation on reforming the elections act, the government would propose significant changes that would rectify the shortcomings of the old legislation. But no, the Liberal government is continuing to protect the way it operates.

We need think only of the trusts or the appointment by a single party of elections personnel. This is how a government in office protects its interests. Democracy is at the heart of legislation on elections. Nowhere in this bill did I see even a hint of democracy. It should shine through each of the clauses of Bill C-2. However, in Bill C-2, I see the means to facilitate patronage and I would go so far as to say the means to encourage businesses and individuals that contribute generously to the coffers of the party in power. And this disappoints me.

I therefore invite my colleagues in this House to consider all the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. These amendments offer solutions the government did not stop to consider, that is, solutions that would improve the democratic process in the next election.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get to the next member I must make a correction to the ruling I just made with regard to Group No. 2. I had initially ruled that Motion No. 106 could not be put because it was out of order in that it required a royal recommendation.

I subsequently in error included it in the motions to be debated in Group No. 2. I regret the confusion but, just to be absolutely clear, Motion No. 106 will not be put to the House because it is not in order.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-2. The New Democratic Party supports major changes to the act. We have been very successful in committee to get a number of issues on the table that were adopted by all members, in particular government members, which is key because they have the hammer in terms of voting.

For example, the government of the day proposed that Saskatchewan's hours, voting time, had been fixed in the original recommendation when the bill was introduced. When I looked at the Saskatchewan time amendment, the government still had not fixed the problem in Saskatchewan, the problem being that Saskatchewan polls closed half an hour after British Columbia. That has now been addressed with an NDP amendment which was supported by the government.

 

. 1230 + -

We believe that Bill C-2 is a very important bill. It outlines the ground rules for democracy in the country. It outlines very clearly how members of parliament are to be elected and how Canadians participate in the electoral process.

We believe that Bill C-2 should be based on the five cornerstones of democracy: accountability, accessibility, responsibility, inclusivity and transparency. In this debate we will be using the test of the five cornerstones on each and every amendment which is before the House today.

With respect to those five cornerstones, I want to acknowledge that in this grouping the amendments related to party size and numbered companies are amendments which our party has put forward and we believe they meet the cornerstone tests with respect to fairness, transparency, accountability, responsibility, inclusivity and accessibility.

For example, there is an amendment that would change the required size of registered parties which officially run candidates in elections. The number in the act was 50. That has been made more responsible, more fair and more inclusive by reducing it to 12, so that now a party composed of 12 candidates can run in a federal election campaign. The party will be duly registered. It will have a voice in terms of a registered party, in terms of the political contributions that are provided. This is a very important amendment because it includes more options, more choices for Canadians with respect to political parties.

The amendment also responds to a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee who said that requiring a national party to be comprised of at least 50 candidates is exclusionary because only two provinces have more than 50 seats. Ontario has 103 and Quebec has about 75. There are only two provinces which can run parties on a regional basis. A candidate who comes from Saskatchewan, where there are 14 federal seats, is excluded from running for a party that is regional in nature. The candidate may be from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which have a total of 28 seats. There are not enough seats to run a regional party putting forward regional interests, in the event that was the interest of the particular region.

It meets the cornerstones of inclusivity and accessibility and it is a very responsible approach to the problem raised by many witnesses, in particular the Communist Party of Canada, as well as other organizations. New Democrats were very strong on making this amendment and we are hoping the government will support this aspect of the bill.

The second amendment in this grouping that we believe is very important concerns making the political contribution process more transparent. At this time a numbered company may make political contributions in the name of the numbered company and the only requirement is that it show the number of the company and the address. Everybody who has ever been involved with a numbered company knows that the address of a numbered company is the law office of the solicitor who is in charge of the company for the individual or group of individuals who actually own the numbered company. There is no transparency. There is no accountability in that process. It is a very irresponsible approach in terms of our democratic process.

We are supportive of that amendment as well, which would require a numbered company making a political contribution to not only provide the name of the company, but as well the name and address of the chief executive officer or the president of the company. That is a very important amendment.

We in the New Democratic Party have put forward a number of other amendments which we feel should be considered. For example, we believe that there should be encouragement for parties to recruit more women candidates. This is an issue which was raised at committee, but our party has actually practised this objective for many years. For example, the NDP has a process whereby if a woman wishes to seek nomination, there is funding available from the local riding association or the federal party to encourage that person to run. There is funding for day care expenses and family care expenses. If the woman wins the nomination, the party kicks in even more money through a special arrangement to ensure there is adequate funding for that candidate and to ensure that we have more women involved in the political process, in particular the elected parliamentary process.

 

. 1235 + -

The government House leader actually recommended this to our committee. However, when we went to committee and introduced the amendment, the government rejected it. It opposed the amendment. We found this quite a peculiar way to bring forward an idea. The government House leader got all the media and press about how the Liberal Party was in support of having more women candidates, yet when it went to committee it deep-sixed the entire idea. The NDP along with the Bloc are the only parties that support the encouragement of having more women in the House of Commons. We feel that it is very important that we look at this issue in terms of making the Elections Act more inclusive.

We also put forward the recommendation on having a fixed election date to make the democratic process more predictable and more responsible. We do not mean a fixed election date as in fixing things, but a set election date whereby every four years on the third Monday of June an election would be held. I see some cabinet ministers opposite who are actually entertained by this notion. When the government does not have a set election date it can manipulate all of its policies, expenditures, programs and political pronouncements to facilitate an earlier or a later date. That is playing with democracy. My view and the view of most Canadians is that we should have a set date. The NDP proposes that it be the third Monday of June every fourth year.

In terms of accountability and responsibility, the NDP believes that we should have a more transparent and accountable process for hiring returning officers. At this time we have 301 returning officers who are appointed by the government. In many cases the government gets lucky and these people end up doing a very good job, but that is not always the case. We are asking the government to look at the hiring of returning officers on the basis of merit, not on the basis of political affiliation, which would make the process more transparent and more accountable, particularly since the returning officers will not be casting the deciding vote in the event of a tie because the government has changed that provision. We believe that it is not a very good provision, but now that they are no longer breaking the tie, the returning officers should be hired on merit because the election of a government member will not be at stake in the event of a tie.

We also asked the government to consider lowering the voting age to 16. We will get to this issue later when we discuss other amendments. Sixteen year olds deal with civic matters, politics and municipal affairs in their high schools. They get driver's licences. Sixteen year olds can marry, they can leave school, they can live on their own or join the military. They can do all sorts of things, yet they cannot exercise their franchise. We feel that it is time to look at that issue as well.

Finally, we feel that we should have a proportional representation system. This would make regional disparities a higher priority in the House of Commons. There is a decline in voter interest in elections. We feel that proportional representation, where people cast a vote for the political party and the party receives the number of seats in the House of Commons related to that percentage of the vote, as opposed to the first past the post system in each provincial or federal riding, would deal with the issues of apathy, regional disparities and regional problems.

I will say more on this bill later, but I would note that the NDP supports the motions in Group No. 2.

Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments. The amendments cover quite a bit of territory. In the 10 minutes allowed I will make an effort to address a number of the issues that have been raised by colleagues on this side of the House and across the way, as we are having participation right around the House.

 

. 1240 + -

Included in this grouping of amendments are some follow up amendments to the committee process, which were reported, rounding out the unanimous decision of committee members to adopt specific accounting standards for the elections accounting that would be submitted during and following an election campaign. The standard, of course, is the generally accepted accounting principle standard used in Canada and North America. There were a number of sections involving some fine tuning of the adoption of that standard so that we would be consistent in our financial reporting.

The second area involves procedures dealing with a registered party which is suspended for failing to comply with one or more elements of the requirements of the statute. Not every party is a registered party. Those that become registered stay registered, provided they continue to comply with the requirements of the statute.

Where a party, for whatever reason, ceases to comply, maybe because it did not do the appropriate filings or because it did not run enough candidates in a campaign, we have to deal publicly with what happens to that party's assets at the time it becomes de-registered or when the registration is suspended. The reason we feel we have to do that is because a proportion of the party's assets are based on taxpayer resources. In the Income Tax Act it is called a tax expenditure. That is when the government forgoes tax revenues by way of a deduction or a tax credit, or anything that would defer government revenues coming in to the benefit of a taxpayer or a taxpaying organization. In this case it is a political party. Where it has assets built in part on tax expenditure moneys, moneys contributed in relation to which there is a tax credit, which is the principal source, but also rebated moneys after an election campaign, we feel that those assets should be stabilized pending an orderly disposition.

The original statute was relatively harsh. The current amendments, including those that are discussed here, provide that the suspended party may retain its assets, and there are four conditions: if it files a statement of assets and liabilities at the time of suspension; if it reapplies to be registered, that is, indicates its intention to maintain its registration if possible; if it presents candidates in the appropriate numbers at the next general election; and it files an annual report of its expenses until the total expenses incurred by the party over time equals the value of the assets existing at the time of the suspension. That would provide for an orderly, accountable reduction in the party's assets.

If the party manages to re-register, to undo the suspension and become active again as a registered party, then the orderly management of those assets would not be a problem.

The next area that I want to address is the appointment of returning officers. There are some amendments in this group that would provide for a national competition. Throughout much of the history of the country we have used the current system for appointing returning officers. It generally works pretty well. Regarding the suggestion for a national competition, it was my sense that no one had actually costed out the real cost of a national, cross-Canada competition for the 301 ridings. My sense is that it would entail quite a cost. Keep in mind that if we are going to interview people for the job, and there might be numerous applicants for one position, there will be interviews across the entire country, from one corner to the other, coast to coast to coast.

 

. 1245 + -

I happen to believe that is quite a costly exercise, in addition to having a personnel facility within Elections Canada just to manage that. If there is something not working, something moderately or relatively dysfunctional about the current system, then we fix it with training. Keep in mind that the training of returning officers has to be there in any event, whether the returning officer is hired through a competition or hired through the current process of appointment. Any weak link should be addressed through appropriate training of returning officers when they are hired.

I think the Chief Electoral Officer is getting better at doing the training. I can only hope that all of us in this place will take our responsibilities to ensure that nominees for returning officer positions are qualified, good and let us call them excellent.

This is the last area I want to address. At least one member has mentioned the government's position on efforts to enhance the candidacies of women. If not all parties then most parties in the House have made good efforts. Some have made very good efforts. I will not give out a report card but all parties are making efforts to achieve a reasonable gender balance in the House.

Mr. Keith Martin: We will leave it to the Reform Party.

Mr. Derek Lee: I will include all parties in the House at this point. Some have been better than others. In my own party, the Liberal Party, we are very proud of our success to date. Our percentage of representation in the House, women to men, is 22%. We are very proud of that.

I would like to think that we are good at it and we are getting better. It is the view of the government that each of the parties in the House should take on that challenge themselves and not necessarily have a statutorily mandated obligation.

One of the amendments would have provided a financial incentive to parties to enhance the representation of women in the House. There are arguments in favour of that, but at this point I do not believe there would be a strong consensus in the House to endorse that. This may come in time. We are not sure.

At this time I can only point out that there is an amendment to the bill which enhanced the access to expenses for candidates who had what we call child care or dependant care expenses. That is generally felt to be good for candidates who have child care or dependant care expenses as they get into political campaigns. While it does not add more money to the campaign, it does allow the campaign to carry the burden of such expenses if they exist without those expenses being part of the election spending cap. That is generally seen to enhance the financial position of many of our candidates who more and more over time are female.

We are getting better at all of this. I will conclude my comments on those five items and look forward to the continuing debate here today.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-2. I would like to compliment my colleague from North Vancouver on all the hard work he has done in putting forth our response to the bill.

There are good parts and bad parts to the bill. On balance, all it does is tinker around the edges of the cornerstone of democracy in the country or what we believe is a democracy. The fact is we do not live in a democracy. This House, this place, is anything but a democracy. It is a place that is the antithesis of democracy in many ways.

 

. 1250 + -

The only time that this country expresses democracy is every few years when there is a general election and the public has an opportunity to put their x on the ballot. In the intervening period of time the House of Commons operates in anything but a democracy.

The government has had opportunities to put forth constructive suggestions to democratize the House of Commons, but the reality is it has not. In fact, when the government was in opposition the last time, it put forth a very good document. It was done by the then Minister Dingwall, the then Minister Goodale, the current Deputy Speaker of the House, along with a number of other sitting members that was a plan of action to democratize the House. It spoke about free votes in the House of Commons. It spoke about giving committees a greater latitude in what they could do. When this government came in and was presented with this document it said “Too bad, so sad”.

The fact is that this government when it was in opposition put forth the seeds of democratizing the House. It would have enabled us to have a constructive, powerful debate where ideas could be debated in a fruitful manner, where committees could have the power to deal with important issues rather than being lackeys of the minister whom they are accountable to not in word but in practice.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves today. We are in the situation where members cannot express themselves and cannot represent their constituents. If they represent their constituents counter to what their leaders say, they get hammered. They are fired off committees. They are removed from their positions. They are sent to the backbenches. That is what happens in the House. Members are forced to pay allegiance to leadership rather than to their constituents. That is what is happening. What a sad state of affairs.

We look at committees where a lot of learned people come to the forefront. They come to committees from the public and give eloquent, articulate important solutions to the problems of our nation. Yet we know in our hearts as we sit there that the committee will eventually put forth a document that is worth little more than the paper it is printed on, usually, but not always. The sad state of affairs is that those documents are rarely acted upon; rarely are the constructive solutions put forth. I could cite many examples.

One example would be the defence white paper which had numerous constructive solutions to help our men and women in uniform, to strengthen our military. These people who put their lives on the line to defend our freedom and our nation put a lot of faith in this document. They believe in the process and they believe in what is in that document, which has good suggestions. What have we heard? Nothing.

In Bill C-2 we had a chance to enable the public and the House to democratize the House, to truly put democracy back into the equation, but we have failed again. It is not difficult, it is just a matter of political will. I think we would find members from across party lines, from every political party, in particular the backbenches but also in cabinet, who would support this with but few exceptions.

Cabinet is also hamstrung by a small invisible cabal of unelected, unaccountable people who sit behind the scenes. Those people are the ones who control what goes on. Even people in cabinet cannot do what they think is the right thing because they are told what to do and what to say and how to say it. That is the state of affairs in this country. This House is not a democracy, it is anything but.

We have examples in Bill C-2 where the government could have done things. As the NDP member mentioned, we need a fixed election date every four years. The public would know when the elections are rather than the government of the day having an unbelievable advantage of when it can or cannot call the election.

On campaign financing we want a level playing field. The government uses taxpayer dollars under the guise of informing the public of what is going on. In reality it is PR for the government that is using tax dollars for this.

We would like the reimbursement of campaign finances removed. Why should the taxpayer reimburse political parties for proffering their own ideas? We have better use for that money. Why not put it into health care? Why not give it back to the provinces for education? Why not use it for our military? Why not use it for a good children's agenda to help the children of this country? That is what we need to do.

 

. 1255 + -

I support the campaign financing limit. We do not want to see a situation such as in the United States. I was visiting Congress when it was voted down. Powerful people influenced the votes of the day. It is happening now.

The auditor general's report cites many examples of millions of dollars being spent on corporate welfare. I am referring to IBM, Bombardier and other companies. They have received tens of millions of dollars in corporate welfare and only 11% of that money is actually paid back.

How can a company such as IBM which makes billions of dollars a year receive $30 million in loans from the government and thus from the taxpayer? Why should a person making $20,000 give their money to the government so the government in turn can give it to IBM? IBM has the audacity not to repay the money. The auditor general's report clearly states that only 11% to 12% of the money is actually reimbursed.

If the government wants to do something useful and fruitful and find ways of proportioning money to people who truly need it, it should end corporate welfare. Companies themselves if truthful would like to see corporate welfare eliminated if their taxes could go down. This is what is happening today. Corporate welfare is taking millions of dollars from the taxpayers of this country. The government is lending millions of dollars to huge companies and that money is not paid back.

What kind of a system do we have that deprives a patient with congestive heart failure from having a pillow yet tens of millions of dollars are being given to IBM and other companies which are not paid back? This is what we have today. It is insane. This is not what people pay taxes for. This is not what taxpayers' money is to be used for. This is not the government's money; it is the people's money. We have to remember this. We perhaps forget about this too much.

I would like to deal with the issue of female candidates which my colleague across the way mentioned. We would like to see more women in the House. Absolutely. We would like to see them here on the basis of equality, competence and merit. It would be patronizing for anybody to say they wanted a certain quota or percentage of women. If this House was filled with women elected on the basis of their merit and their competency, all the power to them.

Gender does not make a difference to their competency. Men and women can be good or bad in any profession. Women and men can be good or bad politicians. It has nothing to do with gender. We believe that people should be treated as equals. On the concept of so-called equity as opposed to equality, we in the Reform Party stand for equality. Equity is a contrived notion which the government manipulates for its own end and we do not approve of that.

The concept of a blackout period is good.

I would like to deal again with the issue of campaign financing. If restrictions to campaign financing were removed, this could create a serious situation such as what we see in the U.S. In the U.S. it costs tens of millions of dollars to get elected. Who can afford to do that? Large companies with powerful pockets can pay to get their man or woman elected. They therefore have undue influence over that person's ability to vote.

The person who does not have money should have the same rights and powers with their elected official as the person who has power and influence. If we remove the provision of campaign financing limits, we remove that ability and that is not a good thing to do.

I want the government to pay attention to the Chief Electoral Officer who is one of the best in the world. The government should listen to his constructive solutions to make Bill C-2 a bill which we can be proud of, a bill which puts democracy back into the elections act, a bill which allows us to represent the people so the people can be heard in the House.

 

. 1300 + -

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act. I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Chicoutimi, who was a member of the committee and who did a terrific job.

As for the bill itself, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada continues to have a number of reservations with respect to certain aspects, which I will share with the House during this debate.

I find it somewhat odd that the House is considering Bill C-2 today when it could be debating other important situations now facing Canadians, such as accessibility to post-secondary education, provincial transfer payments, the alarming increase in child poverty, and health care.

We could be addressing some of these issues today, but we are instead looking at Bill C-2, the Canada Elections act.

[English]

I have had the privilege of meeting with my colleague, the minister of health in New Brunswick. He said there was an urgency to put more emphasis on health in Canada. He asked me to speak to the health minister on this matter.

Unfortunately today once again we see ourselves faced with an act to replace Canada Elections Act. If that is a priority for the government, it is certainly not a priority for Canadians. I find it unfortunate that we are not responding to what Canadians really want.

I could go through the act section by section but I would probably be here all day. I know the parliamentary secretary would not like that very much and would probably rise. However, there are certain areas that are contentious and have to do with opinion polls. I wonder why the government would want to try to strangle these associations and polls during elections.

Two weeks ago I saw the government reigniting the unity or constitutional debate. We were not talking about that. We were talking about things that matter to Canadians. According to the polls, support for the sovereignist movement in Quebec was dropping and support for the federalist forces in Quebec was on the rise. They were certainly good polls and were encouraging for the country.

However, the comments by the Prime Minister of a few weeks ago reignited the debate. We will probably see the polls in a few weeks. I look forward to looking at them and probably speaking to the government which reignited the constitutional debate.

The government probably knows that in the next election, which will hopefully be soon, it will want to put a gag order on polls. It knows that its popularity is certainly dropping from coast to coast.

Let us look at the performance of the government over the past three or four years and at the history books in terms of what previous governments have done in Canada. As I said last week, and I will repeat it today, this has to be the laziest government of the century.

[Translation]

I must say that I am very disappointed with the performance of the Liberal government. Today, we should be addressing important issues, issues that matter to all Canadians, such as health care. I can see that my colleague from Newfoundland agrees with me.

 

. 1305 + -

We know that the population of Canada is aging. Yet, absolutely unbelievable cuts were made to transfers to the provinces for health care.

This bill before us is another attempt to stifle our democratic rights in Canada. This is very typical of the Liberal government. I will be using often the word “Liberal” in my speech. Canadians have had enough of this government, and they are really looking forward to the next federal election.

The Progressive Conservative Party considers basically inappropriate the entire process used to review the Elections Act. I can see that my colleague from Newfoundland understands very well. The government should have achieved a consensus of all parties and allowed enough time for adequate consultation on all provisions of the bill.

Once again, this government, in an attempt to push ahead, introduced a bill hastily, without consultation. I think opposition parties will agree that this is a bill typical of the Liberals not of Canadians.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada proposed amendments concerning three fundamental issues. All the recommendations made by the opposition parties reflect great concern of theirs, which are shared by a vast majority of Canadians. Nevertheless, the government did not take into account those concerns of the opposition parties representing a large portion of the Canadian population. That is why we in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada have very serious reservations about Bill C-2, as do many other colleagues in the opposition parties here in the House.

The government wants to suppress the democratic rights of Canadians and their right to participate in an election. This morning, I was listening to the comments of my colleagues in the opposition and they were talking about computer technicians, carpenters, plumbers and day labourers. This government wants to take their democratic right away from them. It is absolutely disgraceful but this is nothing new for this government.

My time is almost up so I will conclude by saying that I was happy to take a few minutes to talk about this Liberal government bill which is not a bill for all Canadians.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was anxious to speak on this series of amendments dealing with many aspects of Bill C-2, particularly the issue of party funding by the people.

I will like to go back for a few minutes over a statement made by my colleague from Chicoutimi, who said earlier that he was disappointed by the lack of sensitivity shown by the government, in spite of its good intentions in terms of openness, when the consideration of this bill began. The government had said it wanted this bill to be non-partisan and to reflect the concerns and expectations of Canadian men and women and those of the hon. members of this House.

In the end, we have to conclude with some bitterness—and I will speak on it in more details at third reading—that the government has made this revision of the elections act a strictly partisan business.

 

. 1310 + -

Although there have been a few accommodations, and some important amendments were made to the bill, it is nevertheless a fact that fundamental changes could not be made because the government had no intention of making them.

I take this opportunity to greet the people sitting in the lobby of the Liberal Party and who are listening with interest. I am thinking of the people at the Privy Council, in particular Mr. Pierce and Mrs. Mondoux, and at Elections Canada, who are following this debate at report stage of Bill C-2.

I said earlier that we have a series of very important amendments before us. I hope that this debate will not be pointless and that what is said will not fall on deaf ears, because we are taking the trouble to discuss for hours a number of amendments that we find relevant and significant. I hope that the government will listen carefully and be receptive.

I want to discuss briefly a motion, Motion No. 124, which was initiated by my colleague, the member for Longueuil. The proposed motion seeks to create financial incentives for political parties to encourage women to become involved in politics.

Unfortunately, for reasons that I find difficult to understand, this motion was rejected for purely technical reasons that the government could have easily addressed, had it wanted to do so, by simply providing the royal recommendation required in order for that proposal to be brought before the House today, to be debated and eventually adopted.

I think that the government's decision not to provide the royal recommendation for the motion proposed by the member for Longueuil was motivated by political considerations. The government did not want to be in a position where it had to vote against it because, obviously, this proposal does not meet with unanimous support within the Liberal caucus. The government would have had to vote against it and then explain to women from Quebec and Canada why it was opposed to a proposal aimed at increasing women's involvement in politics.

There is also another amendment brought forward by my colleague from Trois-Rivières, whom I salute respectfully. This amendment is aimed at strengthening the democratic nature of people's participation in Canada's political life. Right now, there are legislative provisions allowing a person who makes a contribution to a political party to receive a tax credit, but this applies only if he or she pays taxes. It means that the less fortunate have no incentive to participate, through a financial contribution, in the democratic process in Canada.

I am very pleased to see that this amendment has successfully gone through all stages so far and that we will therefore have to vote on it. The purpose of this amendment is to give the less fortunate the opportunity to make a contribution to political parties and get a break, financially, from the government. This is something that is now limited to those who have a salary and therefore have to pay taxes—which does not necessarily means they have a big salary because it certainly does not take a big salary to have to pay taxes.

Having said that, I want to get back to the nature of the group of amendments itself which, apart from some rather technical amendments dealing with reimbursements, expense returns and contributions, has to do with the funding of political parties by the people. All along we have put forward two ideas. First, we should set a ceiling for contributions.

 

. 1315 + -

Canadians might be interested to learn that at the federal level there is no such ceiling. For all intents and purposes, a corporation may contribute an unlimited amount to a political party. It can be as high as $150,000, $200,000, $800,000, $1 million, $1.5 million, $3 million. The elections act does not set any limit.

We would like to see something like what we have in Quebec. Only those who will ultimately make a choice on election day, namely those individuals who will put an x on a ballot, making a democratic choice, are allowed to take part in the electoral process through their contributions. In other words, only voters should be allowed to contribute financially to a political party.

This is not the first time this issue has been raised in this House. It was raised prior to 1991, 1992, by those who were then members of the Conservative government and who eventually became Bloc Quebecois members. This led the Conservative government to set up the Lortie commission. After it tabled its report, the issue resurfaced a few times in the House.

It resurfaced first as an opposition motion moved by my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, Motion No. 150. It resurfaced later as the topic of a Bloc Quebecois opposition day.

The idea is that everyone should have access to their elected representatives. If, as a company, I contribute $150,000 to a political party, there is reason to believe, and this is what is unhealthy about the present political system, that I would be more likely to have the ear of my MP, a minister or the prime minister than the average citizen who contributes a modest $5 or $10 to a political party's election campaign.

What is required is for every citizen to receive exactly the same attention from his or her political representatives?

In recent weeks, we have heard about some dubious goings-on that point to a very direct link between corporate contributions to political parties, in this case the government party, and contracts later awarded to those same corporations.

This is completely unacceptable. It is the primary reason behind our amendments, which seek to introduce provisions, like those in Quebec, for a system of grassroots funding of political parties. I urge members to consider the proposed amendments carefully.

Throughout the day, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be showing how very close a link there is between the contributions made by companies and unions and the contracts awarded by the government to those same companies.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is Regina—Qu'Appelle.

An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, it used to be Yorkton—Melville.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that is when that member was a member of the Liberal Party. In fact, I kind of remember that. Is that a sunburn that he has, Mr. Speaker? I see a sudden flushing of the face. He was a very prominent member of the Liberal Party. I remember him very well as the chief assistant to the then leader of the Liberal Party. I think people have heard of him. He is still the minister of energy. There is much sun in Calgary.

I just want to say a few words in this debate. The fundamental reason for amending the Elections Act is to provide as much democracy as possible for the people of our country. I want to introduce what is really a very old idea around most of the world and a very new idea in this country. It is the wisdom of us sometime in the House taking a real look at the idea of incorporating some proportional representation into our electoral system. That is long overdue.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The ancient Liberal from Saskatchewan now Reformer from Calgary agrees with me on that. I think we should. Most democracies in the world have a semblance of PR. Proportional representation means that we get the number of seats in the House that reflect the party's vote in the country, the province, the state or the region when an election takes place.

 

. 1320 + -

Our system in this country has been modelled after the mother of parliaments, Great Britain. Even Great Britain has now moved a long way down the road toward proportional representation. When I was there in May, it was in the process of electing members to the European Parliament at Strasbourg. Every one of the British MPs was elected by proportional representation for the first time in the history of Britain.

We have also had with the new Labour government in Britain the devolution of some power to the Scottish and Welsh people. In the Scottish and Welsh parliaments there is PR as part of the mix in terms of those parliaments—

Mr. Jason Kenney: Northern Ireland too.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom:—and also Northern Ireland, as my friend from Calgary has said. Probably in the election after the next in Britain for the English parliament itself, it will incorporate PR or proportional representation into that electoral system.

If one were to now look around the world, we are one of the few countries along with the United States that has the first past the post system that does not have a decent PR within our electoral system. I think it is about time that we looked very seriously at advocating a mix for Canada. The time to do that is perhaps when we are considering the election act. I know it requires much more than just the election act. It fundamentally changes our system.

I suggest that we strike a special committee of the House to look at the various models of PR that might be relevant to our country—in fact, I have a private member's bill on this—and then recommend a model to parliament. When parliament adopts a model, it is put to the Canadian people in a referendum at the time of election. The Canadian people either accept or reject that particular model of PR.

I believe as a federal state we should have what I call a mixed member proportion. In other words, it is mixed into the system. The model that I have in mind would be roughly what the Germans have as a federal state, where they have half their members by PR and half their members in constituencies. My own preference would be about one-third PR and about two-thirds by constituencies; roughly in that proportion.

That is why we need a committee to study what is most appropriate for our country and to design a model that is appropriate for Canada. I think that is long overdue.

Why do I suggest this? It is because I think the Canadian people are feeling that they are not empowered, that there is a lack of democracy, a lack of accountability and a lack of politicians listening to what the voters and the electorate of the country are saying.

If we look at the election results for Canada, federally and provincially we find that in the last 30 years the turnout has plummeted in the country. I remember in 1968, when Pierre Trudeau was elected prime minister, about 80% of the people voted in Canada. In the last federal election, 67% of the people voted, partly because they say, “What's the use? You don't listen. I vote for you, you change your mind. You change policies. Once you're elected, you're there for five years and my vote never counts any more”.

The same thing is happening at the provincial level. In my own province the turnout used to be well over 80% in Saskatchewan. Now it is down into the 65% range. I believe in Alberta it is 58%. I remember Joe Clark saying that at a conference in Edmonton a few months ago.

Right across the country people are starting to give up on the electoral system as being the best system that represents their interest in the Parliament of Canada or the legislatures of this land. One reason for it is the tremendous distortions that the first past the post system gives our country.

Let us look, for example, at the last federal campaign. We now have a majority government elected constitutionally for five years with over 150 seats. It received 38% of the vote in the country. With 38% of the vote, it has a majority government for five years.

Under our system, because of the lack of accountability, it has almost absolute power for five years because we do not have strong parliamentary committees, we have too many confidence votes, not enough free votes and the like. That is 38% of the votes cast. We cannot forget that only about 67% of the people voted. The government across the way represents fewer than 30% of the people of the country, yet there is a majority government for five years because of the kind of electoral system that we have.

In the opposition we have the same distortions. The Conservative Party and the Reform Party both received around 19% of the vote. The Conservatives get around 19 seats and Reformers get around 60 seats. They gain three times as many seats with the same number of people voting for those parties. With the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, the Bloc received 11% of the vote and the NDP received 11% of the vote. We had 21 seats and the Bloc had 44 seats, double the seats of the NDP but the same number of votes. As I said, the combined opposition had 62% of the votes. The majority of the people in the country voted for people on this side of the House by a lopsided margin of 62% to 38%, yet we had a majority government and a strange configuration in the opposition that also does not represent the total number of votes that were cast for opposition parties.

 

. 1325 + -

It is the same thing across the provinces. We often have provincial governments elected, and three of them now, where the government actually has fewer votes than the leading opposition party because of the quirks of the electoral system.

I make the appeal to people here that if we want to have a truly democratic system that we look at the idea of having some proportional representation where if a party gets 10% of the votes, it gets 10% of the seats; if a party gets 38% of the votes, it gets 38% of the seats in the country; if a party gets 20% of the votes, it gets 20% of the seats in the country.

This would create a parliament that mirrors what the Canadian people want because that is how they voted. It would create, in my opinion, radically different voting trends in the country because the first past the post system discriminates against every party in different regions of the country, including the governing Liberals in western Canada.

If we had a system based on at least partial PR, one could vote Reform, heaven help us, in Newfoundland, and that vote would not be a wasted vote. One could vote NDP in rural Alberta, which is almost as rare as voting Reform in Newfoundland, and that vote would not be a wasted vote. That vote would count as much as your vote, Mr. Speaker, in Edmonton or someone else's vote in Toronto for the Liberal Party because every single vote by a Canadian, from coast to coast to coast, would be equal under a system that had proportionate representation as an important part of it. If that is not democracy, then what is a democratic system?

I hope there will be people in all parties who will take up the idea that this is not ideological.

[Translation]

Well I remember how the Parti Quebecois, 15 years ago, under the leadership of René Lévesque, often used to speak of proportional representation in the Quebec of the future. I remember what Mr. Lévesque used to say about this 15, 20 or 25 years ago. This is a concept that was very important to the Parti Quebecois.

[English]

I know that members in the Reform Party and Tory Party talk about PR. I remember Hugh Segal, in a leadership campaign, talking about proportionate representation. I hope even some Liberals across the way, with a system that now works to their advantage but who some day may not be in government but in opposition again, which happens to governments eventually, will look at the idea of creating a modern democracy in the country. I hope they will incorporate the idea of PR to make sure that every vote counts, that there are no wasted vote and that we are all equal no matter where we reside or whom we vote for in the country. If we do that, it will empower people and create a democracy that is better for you and I, Mr. Speaker, and every single citizen of this great country of ours.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are anxious to get to your feet and make an impromptu speech about PR.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At a certain point, I felt concerned by my colleague's remarks.

I did not have much sympathy for his position, but during his speech, I kept wondering about the relevance of his remarks to the issues we are debating in Group No. 2, that is contributions, expenses and returns on contributions and expenses.

Did I misunderstand?

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. whip of the Bloc Quebecois has a very salient and direct point. I think you are quite right. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was not strictly speaking to the amendment. The Chair will be much more cautious in the future.

 

. 1330 + -

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to follow the distinguished former member for Yorkton—Melville which was once known as red square but has now very decidedly become green square since his untimely departure from that place. I respect that member and his contribution to this place. Notwithstanding that somewhat dilatory point of order, I think he made a very important intervention.

On that note he suggested that perhaps there would be future members of the Liberal Party who would put forward amendments, like some of those that have been tabled on Bill C-2, which would seek to bring in a more democratic system of voting.

In fact there is one such member, the right hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister of Canada, who said in 1985 “If ever I am prime minister the first thing I will do is introduce proportional representation”. His wish came true. The member for Saint-Maurice was then in an opposition party that was concerned with the fact that there was a majority government with 100 per cent of the power and less then half the vote. He said that he would bring in electoral reform, but I guess it went the same way as his promises on free trade, the GST, not to cut health care spending, or not to raise taxes. I guess it went down the sinkhole of broken promises of the government and the Prime Minister.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill. It is one of the most important bills that can come before this place. It is an important convention that all parties agree, at least in large part, with the elections act and amendments thereto. After all, this is the process by which we and our successors are elected to this place.

It is unfortunate that I and my colleagues in the official opposition feel obliged to forcefully oppose the bill. We have brought forward many constructive amendments, including many at committee which were not accepted by government members. Many witnesses appeared before committee and members worked hard to elicit their testimony. They complained about many of the draconian features of the bill, many of the restrictions on freedom of speech and many of the failures to fundamentally reform the elections act. Yet all of those appeals were left unheard by the Liberal majority on the committee.

I find particularly odious the government's reintroduction into Bill C-2 of yet another gag law that would prohibit citizens and citizen groups from using their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression to make known their political views on salient matters of public policy during the writ period.

Parliament has twice before sought to impose similar restrictions on so-called third parties, non-political, non-partisan organizations. Twice those restrictions have been struck down by the courts, most recently by a court in Alberta in 1993.

When it comes to court decisions like the one granting a specious fishery right on the east coast based nowhere in the law, the government accepts the decision and says that it is the court speaking and we must respect it. When the courts say that the possession of child pornography constitutes a constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, the government says that is how the courts have ruled and we must respect that ruling.

However, when the courts say time and time again that we as a parliament cannot strip people of their right to express themselves freely through paid advertising during an election campaign, the crucible of democratic deliberation in a society such as ours, the government says again and again that it does not accept the principle or notion of free political speech. It imposes restrictions because it is afraid that what it will hear is not what it wants to hear. I find this quite offensive.

I am supporting the amendments of my hon. colleague from North Vancouver to strike the restrictions on freedom of speech found in the bill.

 

. 1335 + -

If the government insists and proceeds to impose these restrictions, interveners such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and other organizations are likely to challenge them in court. I have every confidence that the court will strike them down. If freedom of expression means anything, it does not mean the right to peddle and possess child pornography. It means the right to speak freely, especially on public matters, political matters, matters of concern to our democratic polities.

The Liberals just cannot stand the notion of freedom of speech. They say that if we do not have limits on the capacity of non-political parties to purchase airtime for their views to be expressed it will somehow undermine the regimen of spending limits imposed on candidates in registered parties in the elections act. Nonsense. Hogwash.

There is absolutely no demonstrable correlation between the amounts of money spent in an election campaign airing a particular point of view and the actual electoral results. The clearest example of this is the referendum on the Charlottetown accord where the yes side in that debate spent over $20 million. The no side, a bunch of ragtag groups, essentially citizens groups, spent less than $2 million, were outspent ten to one, and yet the no side carried the day from coast to coast.

Similarly in the 1993 election the Reform Party was outspent by the Progressive Conservative Party by a factor of nearly ten to one, and yet the Reform Party won a substantially higher percentage of the popular vote and 20 times as many seats as the Progressive Conservative Party.

The point is that there is no correlation between money spent and electoral results. Even if there were, so what? We believe that Canadians are smart enough to analyze the information with which they are presented during an election period. They can make a determination about whether or not the arguments they see aired on television or printed in newspaper advertisements are compelling. We do not need to restrict the information to which voters have access. To do otherwise, to impose the kinds of restrictions which the bill seeks to do, is to tell Canadians they are too ignorant to be able to assess the arguments that third parties might present to them. The reality is that the government wants to control speech.

Another aspect of the bill with which I have a strong disagreement is its continuation of the system of public financing of parties and candidates through reimbursement, which costs over $20 million in an election year.

When Thomas Jefferson, one of the fathers and founders of liberal democracy, wrote the Virginia statute on religious freedom, he said in the preamble that to compel a man to finance the propagation of views with which he disagrees is both sinful and tyrannical. Those are words which stand at the beginning of the history of liberal democracy, the principle that it is tyrannical to compel someone, through the police power of the state, to finance the propagation of views which he abhors.

Many Canadians do not want to finance the views that I and my colleagues in the Reform Party represent. There are many Canadians who do not want to finance the views of the Liberal Party or any political party. They ought not to be compelled to do so through the elections act reimbursement system.

Some will say that is hypocritical because members are in this place and their parties have received reimbursements. I do not believe in unilateral disarmament, but I do believe that we should all at one time eliminate these reimbursements, this taxpayer subsidy for political parties and politicians. There should not be two standards for political speech. There should be one standard alone.

I echo the words of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle in saying that we need more fundamental electoral reform to democratize this system of government so that the choices that Canadians make, the plurality of political opinions, are actually reflected in the House of Commons.

 

. 1340 + -

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I felt it was important to take part in this debate for many reasons, but more particularly because I am a member from Quebec. As you probably noticed, we do contribute with a great deal of enthusiasm and pride.

First of all, I want to congratulate my colleague, the whip of the Bloc Quebecois and member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, and the hon. member for Laval Centre on the painstaking and demanding work they did in committee on this bill.

Our pride and enthusiasm in speaking to this bill stems from what Quebec and its Parti Quebecois government did under the leadership of its premier, René Lévesque. The financing of political parties was as much a priority as language. These were then the two biggest problems in Quebec. The first two bills that government introduced dealt with them. The first one became Bill 101, and the second one was Bill 2, which in 1976 became Bill 102 on the financing of political parties, the second priority of the Lévesque government.

It is in this context that we are speaking to this bill today, in the hope that other governments will follow the example set by the Quebec government. In particular, the Government of Canada, the closest for all kinds of reasons, should follow Quebec's lead because Quebec is, without a doubt and without exaggeration, a model in the western world with regard to political party financing. And when I say the western world, I mean America, Europe and even Scandinavia, most likely. The Government of Quebec is free to act to the best of its knowledge, in good faith and in the public interest.

The Government of Canada should draw a lesson from that. It is a long process, obviously, because there is some resistance in Canada. Over the years, bad habits have been acquired. And yet, this country also has ambitions, just as Quebec does. As a sovereign state, it sends people all over the world. I had the privilege of meeting, in Cameroon, a lawyer who was there under the auspices of the Department of Justice to explain to people there how to run elections.

One wonders if that lawyer knew all the ins and outs of Canadian politics, how things work here, how lax our system is with regard to political party financing.

I think there are two main anomalies in the Canadian system: one at the top and one at the bottom. The one at the top is that there is no ceiling. There is no restriction on the enthusiasm Canadian businesses can display in supporting one political party or another, including the Liberal Party—which can almost be called the only Canadian party—that has been here for many decades. Over the last 100 years, the Liberal Party was in office for many decades, which means that it has reached out into every aspect of daily life in the country. Every four years or so, it calls on the Canadian elite to contribute financially to the election campaign.

And they do so on a large scale, without any restraints. This has results: effectiveness on the one hand, and mistrust on the other. Closer to us, there is the Onex deal, which smacked of election contribution, where, through years of financial support, the corporation had blatant political connections in the Canadian government, especially in the Prime Minister's office it seems.

A few years ago, there was the whole issue of family trusts where, due probably to an extreme and boundless generosity, the people involved had connections in both the office of the Minister of Finance and that of the Minister of Revenue.

 

. 1345 + -

What about the recent events, which might be sad in certain respects, since they are only allegations? In the riding of Papineau—Saint-Denis, we have sworn affidavits about an amount not reported in the election expenses return. All kinds of services were provided in terms of buses and chauffeurs. These expenses do not show on the return even though they could, because it would appear these were legitimate expenses.

In real life, the legislation that should prevail, I humbly submit, should be Quebec's act, whereby we have one man, one vote; one woman, one vote; one man, one dollar; one woman, one dollar. It is not like the Royal Bank, whose president, Allan Taylor, said in 1991 that “the funding of political parties by corporations does not promote the process of democratization nor the participation of the people in political life”.

The funding of political parties as we know it in Canada is a real cancer which does a disservice to democracy. This government might be well advised to stop going around preaching and giving lessons on political funding and organization, especially when we know how it appoints returning officers, when we know it came up with such a “thick” bill, no pun intended, and when we know there is still no requirement regarding voters' identification. What we have to show when we are lecturing abroad on democracy is a system full of holes, a real Swiss cheese in terms of true democracy.

There are anomalies at the top and at the bottom. There is no ceiling on contributions by businesses and governments. It must be noted that governments are encouraged to contribute as well, and if we have time in the ten minutes allotted us, we will list the crown corporations, municipalities and airports that have contributed to the day to day financing of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I do not know whether this sort of thing happens internationally, whether airports and municipal governments are allowed to fund the political party in power. We know how much this government likes to grasp, but at the bottom. The lack of a ceiling is a disadvantage for those who have no money but still believe, despite everything, in the public good, who still believe despite everything in politicians and political parties, those who give a humble $10, $20 or $100 but do not, because of their low income, pay income tax. They are the ones penalized, because if they do not pay taxes, they cannot have a tax credit.

That means that all pensioners whose interest income is not enough for them to pay income tax, all students who earn a little over the summer, all those on social assistance and the unemployed who still believe enough in politics to give $20 to my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic will be penalized because they will never be compensated by the federal government in the form of a tax credit.

This anomaly has to be corrected. Hence my Motion No. 139, which, if carried, and I hope my colleagues will have the foresight to do so, will raise the level of democracy and fairness, because this is a favourite expression of the parliamentary leader when bills are introduced, as well as accessibility. This will mean greater democracy, greater transparency, and will enable the low income earners in our society to contribute, if they still believe in it, to the democratic process.

[English]

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to make a particular point. Why does the government seem so absolutely determined not only to pass this bill but to pass it before the Christmas break, to the extent that I would not be surprised to see it use closure on it? It does on everything else, so it might as well on this bill as well.

 

. 1350 + -

One reason is something on which I have been standing for a while to a bit of scorn here and there, but I will bring it up today anyway. I believe the next federal election will occur before the summer recess in the year 2000. This bill is very Liberal friendly, designed to aid the party in power. Naturally the Liberals want this bill passed before that time comes along. I will be collecting money from some Liberals across the way when this does occur although some of them are now refusing to take the bet because they are starting to learn the facts themselves.

I would like to deal with a couple of issues regarding this bill. One of them is patronage appointments. The government hands out all kinds of appointments to its different friends and allies. People ask why the government does this and its reasoning for doing so.

There was an interesting episode in my riding at the beginning of my first term as a member of parliament. There was an employment insurance board of referees. It was unemployment insurance back then as it had not undergone the $500 million name change. The board had two chairs in the event that one of the individuals was unavailable. In this case both of the chairs had been appointed by the Conservatives. Their time to serve on the board ran out and their terms were not renewed. We suggested several names to the government to fill the position. Interestingly, none of them was a Reform member. They were well known people in the community whom we believed could do a good job.

We could not get a response from the minister's office. Quite unexpectedly the assistant campaign manager of the unsuccessful Liberal candidate ran into my assistant in my riding. He knew we were trying to contact the minister's office. That in itself was pretty interesting, that he would know we had been trying to contact the minister's office. They were telling him but they were not returning our calls. His comment was “Don't worry about it. I am being appointed as the chair”. Although this person has since grown into a somewhat astute political person years after this incident, he was totally unsuitable at that time. He had no relevant experience whatsoever to sit on the board, never mind to be chair.

I raised this issue in the House and this caused a Vancouver Sun reporter to contact the individual. The reporter indicated that I had raised this in the House and felt it was nothing but a patronage appointment. His response was very interesting. He said “Of course it is a patronage appointment. What is wrong with that? How else can we attract people to our party?” How else indeed. I am sure there is no other reason whatsoever. The Liberals will have to stick with patronage appointments because, as their own protege himself said, how else can they attract people to their party?

I would like to speak about patronage appointments particularly dealing with returning officers. Another very active Liberal in my riding was appointed as the returning officer for the 1997 election. We found early on that we were going to have great problems with this individual, not from me but from other people who were trying to deal with this individual. I would be kind to this individual by saying that he was totally inept. That is a kindness. I do make my apologies to the hon. member whose name bears a similarity to that word. But we say inept. If inept is bad, then Epp is obviously good.

This individual had his own ideas and they were quite strange to say the least. Let me put it this way. On election night he would not have wanted to walk down a dark street and meet anybody from the media. We were completely cut off from the entire process. Of the 301 ridings, my riding was the last in all of Canada to get official results. If it were not for the fact that I was so far ahead of the second and third place candidates combined, and it was obvious that I had won, we would not have known until the next day. We declared that I had won and carried on with the celebrations with my supporters and workers.

 

. 1355 + -

There is a tremendous problem. We went to Elections Canada, again not so much with our complaints but with complaints that we had gathered from people who had worked on the election and had not been paid, from people who had been told one thing and then found out the rules were different. He then used the rules against them on the very thing that he had promised them himself. There were complaints of problems with working with the media and a follow-up on how ballots were even counted in the riding.

We took all those to the Chief Electoral Officer who said that he was powerless to do anything because he had not hired the individual. He said that the individual did not in effect work for him, that he was someone to whom he gave some direction. He was in fact hired by the Liberal government.

It is very obvious that a change needs to be made. We are not saying that because a Reform MP was elected by an overwhelming majority in that riding in the last election that we should pick them. We are saying Elections Canada should hire these people based strictly on their competency.

We get the age old squawk from the government of who says that Liberal supporters are not competent. I will not say that because it is not true. Competent people come from every party, but we simply cannot have someone, especially on as sensitive an issue as a federal election, appointed based on their political connection instead of their abilities and competency.

Another thing that is needed is a fixed election date. This is a very strong point with Reform. This bill is about giving the advantage to the party in power, the Liberal Party. It wants to make sure it remains the party in power. While it has the power to change the rules to its benefit that is what it wants to use that power for.

When I was first nominated to run in 1992, I was visiting some friends in the United States who had heard that I would be a candidate in the next federal election in Canada. They asked “When is the election?” My response was that I did not know. They were shocked. They said “What kind of candidate are you if you do not even know when the election is going to be held?” I said “Well, you have to understand the Canadian way. Nobody knows. Eventually the government will know, but it will not tell anybody and maybe it will finally get around to telling us”.

I will close by mentioning one thing which some of the people in my party support but I do not and I would like to go on record for that. It is proportional representation. I am totally opposed to proportional representation. What we would have then would be some people elected and others appointed to fill out that proportional representation requirement. When that happens, whom are these people going to be accountable to? In actual fact, we would have all the parties doing the thing the government does right now and that is appointing people without any accountability to the electorate. That is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being given the time to wrap this up. I may have a little bit of time later, I may not, but thank you for this time right now.

The Speaker: We will now proceed to Statements by Members.



STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[English]

AMATEUR BOXING

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada prides itself on its open embrace of diversity and our commitment to ensure that all Canadians can pursue their dreams regardless of race, religion or ethnic background.

That proposition was sorely tested last weekend when the Canadian Amateur Boxing Association cancelled their light flyweight national championship because one of the boxers, Mr. Pardeep Nagra, a Sikh, has a beard. Both the B.C. Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Superior Court agree that Mr. Nagra's rights have been violated and that he has the right to compete.

It is time for the Canadian Amateur Boxing Association to get with the program and change their rules to ensure that systemic discrimination is eliminated from their regulations.

Our athletes are some of this country's greatest ambassadors. As such, they must reflect the diversity and values of this great country of ours.

*  *  *

HEPATITIS C

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was just over two years ago that Justice Krever tabled his report over the tainted blood supply here in Canada. During this time the health minister and the Liberal government have treated hepatitis C victims shamefully. We have heard the minister repeat that a deal is in the works, that money is forthcoming, that he wants to let the parties work it out, that this process is in the best interests of the victims.

It has been 740 days since Justice Krever filed his report and to date not one hepatitis C victim in the 1986 to 1990 window has received a penny of help. And now we learn that the lawyer's fees are estimated at over $58 million alone.

 

. 1400 + -

To add to the shame is the callous and rigid approach by the minister and the government to ignore the hepatitis C victims who do not fall within the window. These people continue to suffer and die. Their quality of life is continually diminishing to the point where there is no dignity remaining.

I have witnessed first hand the pain, discouragement and financial suffering of victims of hepatitis C in my riding. This is simply unacceptable in a caring and compassionate society.

*  *  *

[Translation]

THE CONSTITUTION

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after the failure of the Meech Lake accord, the constitutional industry ran up a bill of close to $1 billion between 1990 and 1995: $9 million for studies on various themes relating to separation; $8 million for regional and national commissions on the future of Quebec; $4 million in funding for the sovereignty council.

The 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord cost Quebec taxpayers $47 million; mailings to every household, $3 million; hiring of lobbyists by the PQ $500,000; inauguration of the campaign in Quebec City's Grand Théâtre, $175,000. The cost of the referendum on the Charlottetown accord was $103 million.

Millions of dollars have been swallowed up in Quebec and in Canada by these constitutional quarrels. And now, starting today, Lucien Bouchard, the Premier of Quebec, wants to put another $300 million into promoting separation from Canada.

How many millions will the economic uncertainty created by Lucien Bouchard cost Quebecers and Canadians?

*  *  *

[English]

WINTERSTART ALPINE SKI WORLD CUPS

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the past two weekends worldwide television audiences of 40 million people in 16 countries watched the 1999 Winterstart Alpine Ski World Cups which took place at beautiful Lake Louise, Alberta.

I wish to pay tribute to the volunteers who ensured that courses were in worldclass condition and the efforts of Mr. Kerry Moynihan, president of Alpine Canada Alpin and his staff, and the contributions of their corporate sponsors and the Government of Canada.

Congratulations to all the skiers participating and the top Canadian performers, Melanie Turgeon, Emily Brydon, Edi Podivinsky and Darin McBeath. Good luck in their next endeavours.

*  *  *

FIREARMS

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a Salmon Arm man will not do any jail time for his part in the cold, bloody killing of a Vernon couple.

In August 1997, Dennis and Patricia Knapp were shot to death in their bed by 23 year old Michael Gamblin. He is doing life without parole for 17 years. Twenty-one year old Mark Walcot pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his part, driving to the Knapp's and providing the weapon.

But Mr. Justice Barry Davis has granted Walcot a constitutional exemption, which means he will not serve the mandatory four year minimum sentence for a crime involving a firearm. Davis says that would be cruel and unusual punishment so he sentenced Walcot to two years less a day, to be served in the community. He is under house arrest from 8 p.m. until 6 a.m. and cannot ever own a firearm.

Is this what the government meant by its promise to crack down on illegal use of firearms?

Just what will it take for the government to prevent unelected judges from overturning mandatory sentences for illegal use of firearms on the grounds that they violate the constitutional rights of the accused? So much for the government's gun control.

*  *  *

[Translation]

RIDING OF HULL—AYLMER

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the people in my riding of Hull—Aylmer who showed their confidence in me on November 15 by electing me to represent them in the House of Commons.

The riding is made up of people who are determined to meet the challenges awaiting us on the eve of the year 2000. I said that I would work with them at improving the quality of life of the riding and of the region.

I also said I would work toward implementing the platform of the Liberal Party, an ambitious economic, social and cultural platform. The people of Hull—Aylmer supported that platform.

[English]

I would also like to underline how proud I am to be part of the Liberal team which contributes so much to making Canada a better country.

[Translation]

I believe in a strong and united Canada. In fact, I was elected in order to represent the interests of Hull—Aylmer, of Quebec and of Canada.

*  *  *

MARIE-CLAIRE BLAIS

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec author Marie-Claire Blais recently won a prestigious international prize for her body of work, the Union latine des littératures romanes award.

She was paid this tribute in Rome by a jury comprising representatives of Italy, Spain, France, Romania, Brazil, Colombia and Quebec.

The jury eloquently described the work of Marie-Claire Blais. It said “Considered one of the greatest writers of her generation, Marie-Claire Blais combines humour and tragic ambience in her unique and tightly knit style, in which ghostly characters share a crumbling reality”.

 

. 1405 + -

This tribute to Marie-Claire Blais means she will be translated into all the Latin languages represented by the jury.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to congratulate Ms. Blais on being awarded this prize, which, no doubt, will make her immense talent and the literature of Quebec known to an even wider audience. Congratulations.

*  *  *

HANNUKAH

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the festival of Hannukah, the festival of lights, not only because of its significance for the Jewish people, but because of its universal meaning for everyone.

[English]

First, Chanukah signifies the importance of freedom of conscience and religion in general and freedom from religious persecution in particular. For the oppressors of the day sought not only to discriminate against Jews but to extinguish the Jewish religion, indeed the monotheistic principle itself.

Second, Chanukah signifies the right of minorities, indeed of peoples everywhere, to live in peace and in dignity with particular respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and the equal dignity of all persons.

Third, Chanukah is a holiday of hope, that those who persevere in their struggle for human rights and human dignity will ultimately prevail over those who seek to repress them.

May this festival of lights enlighten and inspire us in our deliberations in this House and in our lives beyond it.

May I take this opportunity to invite parliamentarians to a brief candle lighting ceremony which will take place immediately after question period in Room C-237 of the Centre Block.

*  *  *

[Translation]

IMMIGRATION

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Canadian government had good news for many of those who are waiting to become permanent residents in our country.

The government pledged to grant, on a discretionary basis, landed immigrant status to some 2,800 refugees who came to Canada without identification papers.

These refugees, from Somalia, Afghanistan and other countries, fled their country to finally settle in Canada. The only condition laid down is that these paperless refugees must have been in Canada for three years.

Through such decisions, Canada is strengthening its reputation as a haven for those who are living under unbearable conditions when they flee their native land.

The Liberal government is displaying an attitude of openness and sharing, two values that are part of our history and our sense of hospitality.

*  *  *

[English]

TAXATION

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the favourite target of the Liberal government is Canadian taxpayers. In fact, when it comes to raising taxes, the Liberal government has never met a tax that it does not like and has not hiked.

Canadian hockey teams are crying poor due to the high Liberal taxes. The Ottawa Senators are the latest victims to howl for tax relief.

The government should lower taxes, but not just for hockey players. Taxpayers from coast to coast, whether they play hockey for a living in Ottawa or farm for a living back in my riding of St. Albert, deserve real tax breaks.

This country has been built by entrepreneurs, be they hockey players, farmers, small business people and others, who have done a wonderful job of creating employment, not because of but in spite of the tax policies of the government.

When will the government learn that entrepreneurs from hockey teams to home based businesses are fed up with the amount of tax that is taken from them?

*  *  *

YOUTH VIOLENCE

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House the senseless death of 15-year old Dimitri (Matti) Baranovski by a group of other 15 and 16 year olds in the city of Toronto.

This is only one of several acts of extreme violence that we have seen occurring among our youth today.

The question for all of us and for hon. members is why. Why do some of our young people have so much pent up anger and frustration that they would beat another child to death? What is driving our young people to become indifferent toward pain and death?

I ask all members of the House over the Christmas recess and as we approach the millennium to reflect on these acts of violence and to ask ourselves what is at the core of these acts of continued violence in our young people.

I ask that we convey our deepest sympathy to the Baranovski family on the tragic loss of their son.

*  *  *

CHECHNYA

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the New Democratic Party's deep concern for the safety and well-being of the civilian population of Chechnya, in particular those still trapped in the besieged city of Grozny.

As I speak, the elderly, poor and wounded civilians left behind in Grozny face imminent starvation and death.

 

. 1410 + -

The Russian army's behaviour during the Chechnya war has been appalling. The international community must take decisive action to bring an end to the conflict.

I urge our foreign affairs minister to immediately call in the Russian ambassador and strongly condemn the latest Russian army actions.

Canada must also use our seat on the UN Security Council to call for an emergency session on Chechnya. It must be made clear that if Russia carries out its plan to bomb and burn Grozny to the ground this would constitute a war crime, a crime against humanity and a racist attack on the Muslim population and that the international community will hold the Russian government and military officials accountable for these crimes.

The Russian government may have domestic support for these actions but the world must condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

*  *  *

[Translation]

WOMEN'S HOCKEY

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Canadian women's hockey team on winning the Three Nations Cup.

On Sunday, at the Maurice-Richard Arena, in front of a crowd of 2,657, our team beat the Americans 3-2 after the shootout. According to all those who watched it, the game was very exciting from beginning to end.

This is a great victory for a team that lost the gold medal to the Americans at the Nagano Olympic Games. But since then, the Canadians won six straight victories over the Americans.

Quebecer Kim St-Pierre, the goaltender, was particularly brilliant. She stopped 38 of 40 shots during the game, while also blocking all the shots during the shootout. I also want to mention the performance of the Quebec trio of Drolet, Ouellette and Shewchuk, who played very well.

Hockey is a team sport as these players showed us once again. But they also showed us that it is not just a guys' sport.

This physical, intelligent, well-balanced and exciting game will likely be remembered in the annals of the Three Nations Cup.

*  *  *

[English]

IMPAIRED DRIVING

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this month Mothers Against Drunk Driving launched their annual red ribbon campaign.

As we approach the holiday season let us stop and reflect on the tragic cost of drunk driving. Transport Canada reports that more than four Canadians are killed and over 125 injured daily in alcohol-related crashes.

Drunk driving is the single largest criminal cause of death in Canada. It accounts for 40% of all traffic fatalities and costs the economy $7.5 billion annually.

By flying a red ribbon we pay tribute to those who have lost their lives to drunk drivers, remind people to drive sober and show publicly that we will not drink and drive.

I urge all Canadians to support MADD's public awareness program by flying a red ribbon.

*  *  *

LIGHTHOUSES

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, more than just navigational aids, lighthouses are a very real symbol of maritime culture and tradition.

The sad prospect of the destruction or sale of these lighthouses is troublesome for many. Not only will maritime pride and national safety suffer, but so too will the economy activity generated by these important icons.

This is a very real threat. Community groups, like the Enterprise Development Centre at St. Francis Xavier, and others are hoping that the federal government will look at preserving lighthouses in much the same way that the historical railway stations were spared.

In Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Port Bickerton, Queensport and others are in jeopardy.

Lighthouses remain a lifeline to those who sail the sea and these beacons of light continue to provide a very practical safety system. The preservation of lighthouses is vitally important to ensure that not only is heritage maintained but that those who make their livelihood at sea are protected.

I ask that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans give careful consideration to this important issue and weigh the request for a one year moratorium so that efforts by community development groups may be given greater examination of all options. Give lighthouses the ray of light and hope they deserve.

*  *  *

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the National Research Council, the NRC, has been in the vanguard of federal research for decades. Its labs and sciences have been responsible for breakthroughs in audio equipment, aerospace, tar sands technology, the steel industry and ice research. It plays a key role in the training of young researchers.

Like other areas of government, the NRC has been cut back in recent years but, unlike some other areas of government, it has used downsizing to regroup and redesign itself.

Today, through partnerships across Canada, with provincial, municipal, university and private sector groups, it is strengthening and integrating Canada's research capacity.

I urge that the NRC be given all possible recognition in the upcoming budget.

*  *  *

[Translation]

MEMBER FOR NOTRE-DAME-DE-GRÂCE—LACHINE

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine described as disgraceful my criticism of the attitude of certain federal Liberal members from Quebec, who are only too quick to imply that the end of the Canada-Quebec agreement on the provision of health and social services in English to Quebec's anglophone community would result in the outright disappearance of these services. She also said that the Government of Quebec should be held responsible for the exodus of 200,000 English-speaking Quebecers.

 

. 1415 + -

I wish to take advantage of this unfortunate episode to remind members that yesterday in this House we condemned violence. There is physical violence that leaves it mark on the body, and there is the kind of violence that leaves its mark on the mind and that misinforms with terrible weapons, including prejudice, imputing motives, and making simplistic statements.

The inflammatory remarks of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine on a day set aside to denounce violence of any form showed her blind partisanship.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[English]

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition believes British Columbia should have a say on the Nisga'a treaty through a referendum. We would also like the government to legislatively guarantee its assurance that the self-government provisions of the treaty will not be entrenched in the constitution.

Tonight we begin voting on 471 official opposition amendments to the Nisga'a bill. These votes will consume the time of the House for the next few days. Will the government consent to a referendum on the treaty in B.C. in exchange for a withdrawal of these amendments?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thought his amendments were valid and were necessary, he would not try to use them as some type of blackmail bargaining chip.

Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that he withdraw his amendments, let us take democratic final decisions through our votes in the House, and get on with other business.

The Speaker: I would prefer if we stayed away from the word blackmail on a day like today.

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is not just the official opposition in Ottawa that wants a referendum in B.C. and that wants the self-government provisions of the treaty set outside the constitution. This is also the position of the official opposition in B.C., the Liberal Party of British Columbia.

Deconstitutionalizing the self-government provisions of the Nisga'a treaty will ensure that these powers are not entrenched and thereby impossible to change.

Will the government consider a deconstitutionalizing clause in the Nisga'a bill in exchange for a withdrawal of the official opposition's 471 amendments?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill does not change the constitution. The hon. member's question is not necessary.

Out of respect for yourself and the House, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the use of the word blackmail, but I do say that what the hon. member is trying to do is an improper use of the procedures of the House.

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how much time has the House spent trying to correct the defects of the 19th and 20th century treaties? How many billions of dollars has this place spent correcting the defects of the 19th and 20th century treaties?

If the government is concerned about procedure, time and money, why does it not give the House a chance to correct the defects of the Nisga'a treaty, which will cost the House much more in terms of time and money five or ten years down the road?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House, including committee hearings, has already spent more than 69 hours considering the Nisga'a treaty.

If my hon. friend were interested in saving the money of the taxpayers of Canada that would be wasted on voting on each and every one of his amendments, in which he obviously does not believe himself, then he would withdraw, I will not say blackmail, the improper threat to hold up the House. I would—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is the Deputy Prime Minister thinking we should be proud of that kind of behaviour and that kind of response. This is unbelievable.

He brags about 69 hours worth on something—

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton North.

 

. 1420 + -

Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister brags about 69 hours that have been spent on a treaty that will change the way things are done in Canada, he ought to be ashamed of himself. It is unbelievable.

The government is pressing ahead with the deal without any regard for the wishes of British Columbians. Will it at least consider holding a referendum, or will it just go ahead with 471 amendments?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is voting on 471 amendments then the responsibility, the burden, the blame, is clearly on the shoulders of the Reform Party in the House.

We have spent hours considering this measure. The purpose of the House of Commons is not only to debate but also to make decisions and to be responsible for those decisions ultimately through votes of the population in elections.

We are prepared to take that responsibility and not have the time of the House taken up in questionable means by using amendments, not because they believe in the amendments but because they want to hold up the work of—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is not that we do not believe in every one of those amendments. We believe in one most importantly, and that is setting aside from the constitution this whole thing of the Nisga'a treaty.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development himself has bragged about the fact that this will just be a template, if you will, because there are a whole lot more to come. We may not use the word template itself, but he knows exactly which path he is going down.

When we talk about burden or blame, it rests squarely on the shoulders there. Why in the world will they not just straighten this mess out and put people ahead of politics?

Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are finally getting somewhere. Now we are starting to know what the Reform Party's position is as it relates to aboriginal people and their place in society.

If the Reform Party were ever to take the place on this side of the House, it would have to open the constitution to change the relationship with aboriginal people. The House should keep in mind that this party is suggesting it will open the constitution to take away the rights of aboriginal people which exist in the constitution.

*  *  *

[Translation]

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the unilateral approach being taken by the federal government is not limited to referendum rules.

There is the Young Offenders Act. While judges, lawyers, social workers and even the police admit that it has been a success, the government is stubbornly imposing its point of view, despite a distinct society resolution that should allow Quebec to assert its difference.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister see this as an example of federalism that works?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our position is that the Young Offenders Act has the necessary flexibility to allow the provinces to go their own way within the framework of the legislation.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, people enforcing this legislation on a daily basis would not agree with the Deputy Prime Minister.

Recently, during the debate on the referendum question, the Prime Minister told us that what was needed was a consensus and a clear resolution by the National Assembly. In the case of young offenders, not only do we have consensus, we have unanimity.

Are not the attitude of this government, and of the Prime Minister in particular, evidence—I will not say of its bad faith—but at least of its scorn for the National Assembly? Is this not another example of Ottawa knows best?

[English]

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. leader of the third party that there is no bad faith here.

I had the opportunity to discuss the issue of our new youth justice proposals with the Attorney General of Quebec last week in Vancouver. In fact I offered to the attorney general at that time to have her officials sit down with my officials to continue the consultations and to work together. As I understand it, the attorney general refused.

*  *  *

 

. 1425 + -

[Translation]

FEDERALISM

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has clarified his view of the evolution of federalism saying that the federalist status quo was working fine, when it is he who proclaims at every opportunity that the federal system is flexible and changing.

Does the minister not think that his federalist status quo operating so wonderfully is centralizing and standardizing Canada, as exemplified in the bill on young offenders?

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is misinformed. I never said that.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in any case, there are people who think that the federalist status quo of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is not working.

It is certainly not by imposing national standards in health and education and by cutting transfers to the provinces that the minister will convince Quebecers that his federalist status quo is working.

Will the minister finally admit that his pseudo decentralization, he who likes substantive debates, debates on semantics, is merely devolution, in which those who have money—

The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the advantage in having the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry as critic is that he has a certain credibility to defend. It is unfortunate that he is obliged to read from texts that clearly are written by his leader, because he could not defend such an argument in any international forum on the decentralization of federations in the world.

*  *  *

[English]

AGRICULTURE

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, western farm families are being driven off their land by the deep pockets of European and American treasuries. It is now clearer than ever that European and American agriculture support will not be disappearing any time soon.

Will the finance minister at least recognize the real choice that we face and either provide bridge financing now or literally drive thousands of farm families off their land?

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the trade minister and I both expressed our disappointment yesterday that the talks in Seattle did not get off to a better start.

However we do know that the last round, the Uruguay round, mandated negotiations in agriculture and services. They will start not at the speed unfortunately that we would like them, but in the meantime we continue to work with the provinces and with the industries.

I will be meeting with my provincial counterparts later this week in order to continue those discussions and on how collectively we can support those farmers who are badly in need of that support.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is not more discussions but urgent action that is needed. AIDA is not working. Farm communities say that AIDA is not working. Farm delegations say that AIDA is not working. Some members say that they are ashamed of AIDA.

Everyone apparently except the government seems to understand that AIDA continues to be a disaster. When will the government bring forward a new plan with the necessary support that will allow families to stay on the farms?

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the hon. member up to date. AIDA was a program for 1998 and 1999. There are only about three weeks left in 1999. That is why we are working on the long term in order to follow AIDA.

*  *  *

HIGHWAYS

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, highways like highway 101 in Nova Scotia are death traps and Canada's national highway system is in a shambles.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Last year Ottawa collected $6 billion in fuel taxes and yet only returned 5% to highway funding in Canada. In the U.S. the federal government returned a staggering 84%—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order, please. With the heckling I cannot hear at this end.

 

. 1430 + -

Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, last year Ottawa collected $6 billion in fuel taxes but returned less than 5% in highway reinvestment in Canada.

In the U.S. the federal government returned 84% of all fuel taxes to highway construction.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why are we investing the lowest percentage of fuel taxes collected in our highway system of any industrialized country?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course one of the reasons is that for 10 years there was a Tory government in power in this country.

The simple fact is that when we took office the government initiated one of the most successful infrastructure programs the country has ever seen. It was a tripartite program and we invested in roads.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, this finance minister has been finance minister for six years. If he does not like these allegations of highway robbery then I suggest he do something about it.

The fact is that there are some other elements of tax policy that need fixing. The finance minister should eliminate the capital gains taxes on gifts of listed securities. Two years ago the finance committee recommended the elimination of these taxes on charities. The finance minister took one step in the right direction by reducing by 50% these taxes on charities. We would call on him to do what the United Way has suggested to him and what all charities in Canada are pressuring him to do, eliminate capital gains taxes—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Finance.

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to give the hon. member a bit of my time because my answer will be relatively short.

The fact is that the government did introduce the charitable tax exemption to which the hon. member refers. It has been tremendously successful. It has led to gifts for hospitals, for the arts, for museums across the country and to the United Way.

I am glad that the hon. member recognizes the measures the government has taken to help Canadian philanthropic organizations.

*  *  *

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister talks about 67 hours of debate on the Nisga'a treaty. I would like to inform him that we have had less than a handful as the only opposition party opposed to the treaty.

I would like to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that the negotiations leading to that treaty took place in secret, behind closed doors, even though I am the member of parliament who represents that constituency. I would like to tell him that as the official opposition critic sitting on the committee I was limited to five minutes in asking witnesses questions.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, would he consider decoupling the self-government provisions of the Nisga'a treaty from constitutional protection?

Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know we will not get anywhere with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, so I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister the question one more time. There are times in the House when we should put partisan differences aside in the best interests of the country.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, in the best interests of Canada, in the best interests of the Nisga'a people, the Gitksan people, the Gitanyow people, my constituents and all British Columbians, will he consider decoupling the self-government provisions of the Nisga'a treaty from constitutional protection?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my friend in the spirit of non-partisanship and say that I completely support the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when he says there is no constitutional change brought about by this agreement. This has been extensively debated.

In the spirit of non-partisanship, I invite him to ask his Reform colleagues to withdraw their threat to use amendments to hold up the work of the House.

*  *  *

[Translation]

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now we understand why only 40% of the unemployed draw benefits. This is a deliberate measure by the government.

The cat is out of the bag. Yesterday the minister said “It is their own fault they have no work, so we are cutting them off”.

How can the minister say such a thing when she is the one responsible for the increased poverty in Canada?

 

. 1435 + -

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that when we are talking about employment insurance that is one program which is in place for those Canadians who have worked and want to get back to work.

On this side of the House we are focused on ensuring that every Canadian who wants to work can work. Our approach is having an impact. We are celebrating the lowest unemployment rate in Canada in almost two decades.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Human Resources Development, with her obligation to defend the unemployed, become the accomplice of the Minister of Finance by allowing him to dip into the billions of dollars in the employment insurance fund surplus as he sees fit?

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I talk to the unemployed in Gaspésie, on the Acadian peninsula, in my riding and in other ridings, they want work. That is why they are very supportive of our programs, such as the transitional jobs fund, the Canadian jobs fund, the opportunities fund for Canadians with disabilities and our focus on youth.

The unemployed want to be employed. That is why our programs are focused on working with Canadians to ensure that.

*  *  *

TAXATION

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a rare moment of candour the finance minister was caught on video admitting that taxes are going up. That comes as no surprise to Andy in my riding, a mechanic in my hometown of Brooks, who just sent us one of his pay stubs. After working his guts out all year, he finally got his Christmas bonus, only to find that this finance minister got 42% of it, $1,400.

Why does the minister not just give Andy his Christmas bonus instead of the Christmas goose?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have already done that. If Andy has a family of four with an income of $60,000, Andy is going to get a tax cut of 10% a year. If, on the other hand, Andy has a family with an income of $50,000, he is going to get a tax cut of 15% a year. If he has a family with an income of $40,000, he is going to get a tax cut of 38%.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it sounds like someone's chestnuts are roasting on the open fire these days.

In that place where the finance minister should have his heart, I want to ask him, does he really think it is fair that 42% of Andy's bonus is being taxed away?

At this time of year does the minister really think it is better to receive than to give?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is that a reference to the full monte?

I could go on and on. There are 600,000 Canadians who are no longer paying taxes. At $20,000 of income a taxpayer will get a credit of $3,600. At $30,000 of income Canadians no longer pay federal income taxes as a result of the actions taken in the last two budgets by this government.

*  *  *

[Translation]

CHECHNYA

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Friday in this House, the Minister of Foreign Affairs refused to allow Canada to exert pressure on the International Monetary Fund in order to get it to stop funding Russia's war against Chechnya.

That same day, the IMF bowed to the pressure from France and Germany. The day before yesterday, Russia issued a most disturbing ultimatum: civilians who have not left Grozny within five days will be killed.

What does the minister plan to do about this flagrant violation of the Geneva convention?

[English]

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to begin with, the hon. member once again is making things up. I did not say that we would not put on pressure. In fact there have been very extensive discussions. I think it might be very appropriate for the IMF to take decisions in relation to the actions of Russia because the ultimatum that it put forward last weekend is totally unacceptable to Canadians.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Bill Clinton announced that Russia would pay dearly for its actions in Chechnya. This morning, Jacques Chirac pronounced it unacceptable, and Great Britain expressed consternation.

What is the minister waiting for before he adds Canada's voice to the international clamour which is stating loud and clear that Russia's attitude to Chechnya is basically and totally unacceptable?

 

. 1440 + -

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said the same thing this morning.

*  *  *

[English]

HEALTH

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health likes to stand and make hollow promises defending the Canada Health Act, but the auditor general's report states very clearly that five provinces are in violation of the portability principle of the Canada Health Act.

Would the Minister of Health like to stand and tell this House which provinces are violating the portability principle of the Canada Health Act?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general made a number of recommendations which we found very helpful, many of which we have already implemented.

One of the points which the auditor general made in relation to the Canada Health Act is that the Government of Canada should work co-operatively with the provinces to make sure that everything they do in delivering services is consistent with the principles of the act. That is exactly what we intend to do.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is another non-answer from the health minister.

What is the real problem with the health of Canadians? Who is the real enemy of the health of Canadians? This minister and his government. They are the enemies of the health of Canadians.

In my province today 600 Canadians with cancer are waiting up to four months for radiation therapy. The head of the B.C. cancer agency is now going to be forced to send these patients to Port Angeles in the United States.

Will the minister promise British Columbians that these 600 cancer patients will get their radiation therapy now and not four months from now?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the promise I make to the House and to all Canadians is that the government will continue to work within the principles of the Canada Health Act to tackle the problems in health care and solve them.

Unlike the hon. member and unlike the Reform Party, which would scrap the Canada Health Act, which would end public medicare and choose the American-style approach, two tiered medical care, we will never—and I promise—go in that direction.

*  *  *

[Translation]

IMMIGRATION

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 14, the Montréal Sénateur arrived in the port of Montreal. Five days later, three Romanian refugees were found dead in a container. According to our information, Immigration Canada was notified the day of the ship's arrival that there might be people in that container.

How can the Minister of Immigration explain the inaction of her officials, who did not even deign to go and check things out when they were informed of the situation?

[English]

Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anyone in the House who does not take very seriously the issue of people smuggling. We know that those who place themselves in the hands of transnational organized crime and people smugglers do so at great peril.

I know that the officials in my department do whatever they can to ensure that anyone who arrives at our ports of entry are treated as fairly as they can be. If we do hear of cases where people may be at risk, we respond appropriately and as quickly as possible.

*  *  *

AIRLINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. My riding of Brampton Centre is home to a great number of employees of both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, as well as many other airline related industries.

Can the minister tell the House what steps will be taken to ensure that the interests of my constituents as well as the interests of the Canadian public are protected in any proposed restructuring of the Canadian airline industry?

Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the private sector is working toward a solution. We know that Canadian Airlines has recommended that the offer be accepted by its shareholders.

As I said to the president of Air Canada last week, the first step in dealing with this matter should be the Competition Bureau to make sure that any proposed merger meets competition guidelines. We will be applying the five principles that I enunciated some weeks ago for the public interest test to ensure that when legislation comes forward to the House the interests of workers and consumers will be protected.

*  *  *

 

. 1445 + -

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for months now the Minister of Natural Resources has been telling Canadians that the test burn of American plutonium at Chalk River poses absolutely no risk to Canadians. However, the U.S. plans to use nuclear bomb transport trucks with security guards who are authorized to use deadly force to transport this plutonium.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. If this shipment of plutonium presents no danger, why is there this level of security?

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely convinced on the basis of all the information before us that this transportation is very low risk. That has been verified by the work undertaken by the Department of Transport under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon us to take all of the necessary precautions to ensure the safety and security of the shipment and therefore the safety and security of Canadians and the protection of the environment. We will ensure that all Canadian laws are fully respected.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I surely cannot imagine that the Americans will be willing to relinquish control of their nuclear bomb transport trucks and their armed guards once the plutonium crosses the Canadian border. If we combine that with the position of the Mohawk who have sworn to do whatever is necessary to prevent plutonium from entering their land, the combination could be explosive.

Again my question is for the minister. Is the government granting American security guards the right to use deadly force against Canadians?

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, emphatically no.

*  *  *

ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we now know where the government's spending priorities are. Through the department of ACOA, the ACOA minister has authorized $300,000 for Christmas lights this season in the town of Charlottetown instead of dealing with the Cape Breton miners and their families in Cape Breton.

I would like the minister responsible for ACOA to speak directly to the miners and tell those people and their families if he really believes that $300,000 on Christmas lights is a wise expenditure of Canadian taxpayers' money.

Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in order to shed some light on this question, I might suggest that the hon. member should be illuminated with the facts.

This agreement is an agreement with the province of Prince Edward Island that has agreed to cost share and asked the federal government to participate. That government is a Tory government.

We believe that both the NDP and the Tories are in the dark and they should be enlightened.

*  *  *

DEVCO

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the point is $300,000 for Christmas lights is plenty for Cape Bretoners to see where the priorities of this government are.

Today 600 miners took over the General Mining building in Glace Bay. These miners want the minister to stop playing games with their lives. They simply want the truth.

Will the minister today show some Christmas spirit and tell these miners whether or not there will be improvements to the pension package and if so, how much?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the supplementary question relates directly to Devco, I would like to respond to the hon. member.

She mentioned there were 600 workers involved in a job action today in Cape Breton. My understanding is the number is 200. The unions have encouraged their workers to go back to work, as has Devco management.

 

. 1450 + -

Obviously we are dealing with a difficult situation. Devco has indicated that any terminations that might previously have been expected in January will not begin until after March 31. At the same time, in light of the early closure of Phalen, we are examining the human resources issues to see what new we can do.

*  *  *

COAST GUARD

Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, on September 15 the coast guard vessel Bernier was removed from active search and rescue duty on Canada's east coast so that a lavish dinner party and cruise could be held for 30 senior bureaucrats of Correctional Service Canada. The minister may not be concerned about $6,615 of his department's budget plus of course the cost of overtime, extra staff and fuel. But is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at all concerned that the search and rescue helicopter was taken off the vessel to make room for dancing and that the vessel itself was removed from search and rescue, thus jeopardizing the lives of mariners on Canada's east coast?

Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, no lives were at risk. We do have a multi-tasking search and rescue program that ensures other boats are in place.

The hon. member has raised a very good issue. I want to assure the House and the hon. member that this will not happen again. It was not according to guidelines. I have been assured by the department that something like this will not be repeated again.

Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer that this will not happen again.

Yesterday I was also informed by a search and rescue employee in St. John's that the budget is so tight, search and rescue vessels are forced to stay in port and are not allowed to go out unless an absolute emergency occurs.

This lavish dinner included the following costs: $535.75 for wine and beer; $1,382.25 for party supplies; $1,272.00 for sound equipment rentals; and $1,963.65 for lobster tails flown in from Nova Scotia. Will the minister make sure those individuals involved repay this money so—

The Speaker: The hon. minister of fisheries.

Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to members that no lives were at risk at any time. This was a situation where there were federal officials on board. Certainly the guidelines were not fully complied with. I assure the hon. member that I have asked the coast guard and I have been assured by the commissioner of the coast guard that this will not happen again.

*  *  *

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for Children and Youth.

Yesterday a historic election took place in the Northwest Territories. This was the first election since the creation of Nunavut. Can the secretary of state tell the House how this election will improve the lives of children and youth in the north?

Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the prospects are many for young northerners. Northern Canada has to be one of the most exciting places to be at this point in our history. We are a resource rich region. We are a caring and diverse society. The re-election of Premier Antoine and the election of the new MLAs reflects that, especially the election of young Brendan Bell who is 31 years old, a dynamic young entrepreneur, as well as Sandy Lee who came from Korea at 14 and who could not speak a word of English. This is what Canada is all about. This is the Canada we want for our children.

*  *  *

COSCO

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while the government has claimed to be getting tough on organized crime, it has shut down the Vancouver ports police and at the same time has granted special privileges to COSCO, a Chinese shipping firm that has a terrible history of shipping illicit materials. The U.S. refused to allow it to set up a container port in California but this government has set up a first port privilege for COSCO in Vancouver. With no ports police in Vancouver, how does the solicitor general ensure this company is not shipping illegal products to Canada?

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that this government has made organized crime the number one law enforcement priority. If he looked at the Speech from the Throne he would be fully aware that was in it.

*  *  *

 

. 1455 + -

[Translation]

GLOBALIZATION

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as regards globalization, the Minister for International Trade said he was open to the idea of a WTO parliament to ensure greater transparency. Yesterday, the minister expressed in this House his willingness and desire to engage in a dialogue with civil society.

In light of these statements, can the minister give the House one single valid reason to justify his refusal to allow a debate on the issue through the establishment of a parliamentary committee that would hear members of the civil society?

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants a parliamentary committee to set up a subcommittee, he is fully entitled to make such a request. If he wants the Canadian parliament to create another committee, he should discuss it with his House leader. I know his leader well, he is a nice fellow and he is always prepared to discuss this kind of issues at our weekly meetings.

*  *  *

[English]

RCMP

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. Last week British Columbians were appalled to hear the minister say that there will be no new resources for the RCMP in British Columbia.

In my community of Burnaby alone we are short 23 members and we cannot mobilize the bicycle squad needed to fight drug dealers in the Metrotown area.

Will the minister deliver on the funds needed to fight crime and improve RCMP working conditions? Will he lobby his colleague the immigration minister to stop abuses of our refugee laws? Or will he just give up and resign because he is an absolute failure in fighting crime?

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague did not get his questions out of a newspaper and did some research, he would know quite correctly that I never stated such a thing.

I have indicated that there is a resource review taking place with Treasury Board in co-operation with the RCMP and my department. This issue will be addressed.

*  *  *

[Translation]

AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Transport is rejecting any responsibility for the situation that led to the suspension of InterCanadian's operations, the air carrier is still doggedly pursuing its restructuring efforts by trying to find the necessary financial backing.

However, potential investors are reluctant to get involved. No one, absolutely no one knows what the airline industry is going to look like.

During this restructuring and major transition phase, does the Minister of Transport have a plan to help InterCanadian and all the regional carriers that are anxiously waiting for the veil of uncertainty to be lifted?

[English]

Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, it is rather unfortunate what has happened to InterCanadian, but its problems were well known many months ago. In fact, it took corporate decisions which belied the very fragile state of its own balance sheet by ordering new planes last summer.

Obviously, the position of regional carriers in any new restructured airline industry is one that has to be watched closely to ensure that there is competition and fair prices.

I will be waiting for the Commons and Senate committee reports this week to help guide the government in the next few weeks so that when we return after the Christmas break there will be legislation that will give regulatory and statutory oversight to this industry.

*  *  *

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, rural Canada is made up of people with grit and determination. With this in mind, what is the secretary of state for rural development doing to ensure that the concerns of rural residents are taken into account as the federal government develops its policy and legislation?

Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government understands that the realities facing rural Canadians is often very different from those facing urban Canadians. There are things like our geography and our relative isolation, things like distance from markets, things like the fact that we depend on natural resource based economies that are cyclical in nature.

That is why the government applies a rural lens when developing legislation and its response to policies. This rural lens ensures that the needs and concerns of rural Canadians is taken into account when we put forward legislation and our response to the issues of the day.

*  *  *

 

. 1500 + -

POINTS OF ORDER

COMMENTS IN CHAMBER

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from yesterday's question period when I asked the finance minister a question about taxes. He responded to me, and I have it on videotape, and here are the actual blues from yesterday afternoon.

The Minister of Finance said “Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party just cannot live with good news. The fact is that taxes are going down, the national debt is going down, taxes are going up, the national unemployment rate is at its lowest level in the last 18 or 19 years”. That is what was said. I reviewed the actual videotape of it in my office yesterday.

When we got the actual Hansard today, the minister says “The fact is that taxes are going down. The national debt is going down. Taxes are going down and the national unemployment rate is—” going down.

When he said yesterday that taxes are going up, then all of a sudden in actual Hansard, which is there forever more, the minister says that taxes are going down. I would like to cite from Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 54, it is considered a breach to alter the debates when:

    Alterations in the Debates are traditionally limited to minor corrections of syntax and will often be made by the Member involved before printing. More substantial changes should be made the following day by a statement in the House. Such changes are accepted with consent and are printed in the daily report.

Whether taxes are going up or down, it seems to me to be just a hair more than a little change in syntax. I think perhaps the minister should have come here.

Citation 55 states:

      —it is acceptable to make changes so that anyone reading Hansard will get the meaning of what was said.

The Speaker: I think the point is well taken. We are getting into debate, but if the minister wants to clear it up for us, it will end there.

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): The only point I would make on syntax, Mr. Speaker, is that Reform would tax anything.

The Speaker: My colleague made reference to the blues. I of course will turn the matter over. My clerks will check the whole thing.

Does the hon. member have another point of order?

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to belabour this, but we have been in touch with the Hansard people and apparently the blues did come back with “taxes are going down”. The editor allowed that. So the minister's office made the change and the editor allowed it. He said that he could have said no, but just left it in.

It sounds to me like that is pretty arbitrary and subjective decision making. I certainly put it before you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a 180 degree change and it is more than just syntax.

The Speaker: I will to look into it and I will get back to the hon. member on that.

*  *  *

 

. 1505 + -

WAYS AND MEANS

NOTICE OF MOTION

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion respecting amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, as well as explanatory notes.

This is just one further step among many already taken by the government to lower the taxes of Canadians to create an even more vibrant, growing and job producing economy. I ask that an order of the day be designated to debate the motion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]

CANADA ELECTIONS ACT

 

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 2.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am now prepared to give the balance of the ruling on Bill C-2. Motions Nos. 2, 3, 22, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 63 and 78 are the same as amendments presented and negatived in committee.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76(5), they have not been selected.

[Translation]

To sum up the ruling made this morning: Motions Nos. 106, 107, 108, 110, 124, 126 and 127 cannot be proposed to the House because they are not accompanied by the recommendation of the governor general. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice of such recommendations be given no later than the sitting day before the beginning of report stage consideration of a bill.

[English]

So far, the following motions in Group Nos. 1 and 2 have been put to the House.

[Translation]

Group No. 1, Motion No. 1.

Group No 2, Motions Nos. 87 to 105, 109, 111 to 123, 128 to 135 and 139 to 141.

[English]

The rest of the groupings are as follows: Group No. 3, motions number 4 to 13, 19 to 21, 23 to 44, 62, 75 to 77.

[Translation]

Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 14 to 17, 79 to 86, 136 and 137.

[English]

Group No. 5, motions number 18, 45, 47, 55 to 61, 64 to 74.

[Translation]

Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 53, 54, 138 and 142.

[English]

The voting pattern is not available at this time due to the high volume of amendments received. It will be available later, prior to commencement of the voting.

 

. 1510 + -

Resuming debate on Group No. 2.

REPORT STAGE

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I cannot say that I am pleased to be here today talking about Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act. The bill before us today does little to promote democracy in Canada. In fact, it does the exact opposite in many crucial ways.

I am disappointed that the first major overhaul of the elections act in 30 years is so restrictive on the fundamental expression of free speech and restricts competition on the ballot. I believe it is fundamentally wrong for the government to impose third party spending limits during an election. I believe it is wrong for the government to use taxpayers' moneys to get itself re-elected.

I think it is wrong for the government to maintain a 50 candidate rule to determine the official party status.

I believe that the system of patronage in place today with Elections Canada must be changed.

I believe that spending limits amount to nothing less than a gag order on any group seeking to counter government propaganda during an election campaign. This bill limits third party spending to $150,000 for a general election, of which no more than $3,000 may be spent in any particular riding. By contrast, the total election spending limit for the Liberal Party is close to $30 million.

Two separate court decisions in Alberta have struck down the spending limits as unconstitutional. The Alberta courts have recognized that it is not the place of the government to limit the rights of individual Canadians or groups of Canadians to spend their own money in support of a cause or a candidate. I would argue that the right to spend one's own money on election advertising is a right which is just as valid for someone who is poor as it is for someone who is wealthy. There is no evidence that either restricting or not restricting spending limits has any measurable impact on the outcome of a free election or referendum. For example, during the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, the yes side lost even though it spent at least 10 times as much as the no side.

Having said that, I think some sort of a limit on spending would be desirable for everyone involved in an election campaign. I would have liked the government to have consulted with third party organizations, such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the National Citizens' Coalition, to see if there was some room for agreement on this issue. It comes as no great surprise that the government chose not to consult but simply to enforce its will on Canadians.

As a result, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the National Citizens' Coalition have publicly stated that they will challenge the new spending limits in court. All this is because the government wants to stifle freedom of expression during elections. I guess a government that managed to win only 38% of the popular vote in 1997 should be worried. It is just too bad that the government refuses to listen to the majority of Canadians because if it did there would be no problem with third party spending.

On the issue of taxpayer subsidies, it amazes me that at the same time that Bill C-2 imposes limits on spending by private citizens in support of a party, candidate or policy, it allows the government to use tax dollars collected from these same citizens to pay for advertising aimed at re-election of the government party. Taxpayers should not be expected to fund activities designed to persuade them to vote.

I will speak now about the section dealing with official party status. In March, the Ontario court struck down the sections of the elections act which require a party to run 50 candidates in an election to remain on the register and to have its candidates listed with the party affiliation on the ballot.

 

. 1515 + -

I would like to know from the government why 50 candidates is the magic number when the Ontario court ruled that 2 candidates would be sufficient. In this regard the official opposition proposes in its amendments having 12 candidates in order to become a registered party.

The government wants to stifle the formation and growth of new political parties. Members opposite would say they are trying to protect voters from frivolous parties. However I would suggest that Canadian voters are smart enough to tell the difference between frivolous and serious candidates. It is a shame that the Liberals are telling Canadian voters through this piece of legislation that they are too stupid to tell good candidates from bad ones.

I want to talk a bit about the patronage process that goes on within Elections Canada. Many Canadians are not aware that returning officers with Elections Canada are presently political appointees of the Prime Minister. We think that an important electoral organization like this one should be politically non-partisan. However the Prime Minister has made this impossible.

The chief electoral officer has stated that he must be given the power to hire his returning officers based on merit alone, a common sense approach, and not based on his or her track record of servitude to the Prime Minister of Canada.

The government has defended its system of patronage by saying it would cost Canadian taxpayers more money to hire people off the street. What a lame excuse. However I would argue that the Canadian taxpayer would feel much better if his or her tax dollars were going to someone based on merit and at a competitive salary scale than to the Prime Minister's buddies at a grossly inflated wage level.

I find it amazing that when Elections Canada aids third world and emerging countries in the set up of their electoral system, it always recommends against a patronage ridden system like that found in Canada. Our chief electoral officer has said that when he goes to the international scene he does not recommend that the Canadian system be emulated when it comes to the appointment of returning officers. What a shame that our chief electoral officer will not recommend our system.

The official opposition has insisted many times that returning officers in their ridings must advertise in the newspapers for staff instead of asking for positions to be filled with patronage appointments. That formal competition for returning officer positions should be open to all Canadians. I do think that is too much to expect. Yet the government seems to be content to promote a system based on whom they know as opposed to what they know.

On the issue of voter identification it is the current practice that an elected official, who has doubts about a voter's identity or right to vote, may ask the person for proof of ID and residence. The voter has the right to take a prescribed oath instead of showing proof of ID. I believe that proper identification should be shown at our polling stations to prove eligibility and residence. It substantiates our right to vote and it virtually removes the possibility of fraud. Yet the government refuses to do it.

In conclusion, Bill C-2 is the government's attempt to make a full scale change to what must be one of our most democratic and accountable institutions, our electoral system. What the bill does is far from being democratic. Through the bill the government wants to stifle the rights of electoral and third party participants in a democratic process. The government wants to restrict freedom of speech and competition on the ballot, and I think that is wrong. Therefore I will not support the bill.

 

. 1520 + -

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, the issue that is being dealt with today is strictly a power struggle. It is a struggle between the political power and the financial power. That the Liberal Party holds the political power and it also wants to join in with the financial power. Obviously, the best way to do this would be to give access to this Chamber to those people and share the power with them.

Who is financing the Liberal Party? Large corporations, banks, even public bodies and wealthier individuals.

When amendments to this bill were requested, they were designed to transfer a portion of those powers from the wealthy to the mass of less fortunate people to give them the same level of influence on the government.

Naturally, the Liberal Party, which is the governing party, cannot accept such a thing. If it did, it would mean giving to the majority of people power that is more easily controlled when exercised by good friends.

Not too many organizations in the world would agree to relinquish a portion of their powers unless they strongly believed in the benefits of democracy and of free speech.

We could give examples of organizations that contribute to the Liberal Party campaign fund. For reference year 1996-97, the most complete in our statistics, we see that crown corporations contributed to the Liberal Party campaign fund. In 1996, Atomic Energy of Canada contributed $1,345. There is also Canada Post. Is there an organization closer to the government than Canada Post? That corporation contributed $715, or the equivalent. There are other organizations and governments, such as cities and regional county municipalities, financing the Liberal Party.

Does the government listen better to those cities and municipalities that contribute to the party's electoral fund when they submit projects asking for subsidies? Is that the standard practice? Is that why municipalities accept to finance the Liberal Party?

Other organizations include national airports and harbours. In 1996-97 for instance, the Calgary Airport Authority contributed $3,371 to the Liberal Party fund. The Montreal airport gave less, or $151. That is probably the price of a dinner ticket that was bought and charged to the election fund. As for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, it contributed $3,453 to the campaign fund. These are large amounts.

Another example that illustrate the situation very well is that of hockey clubs. I have two on my list. These two, in spite of financial difficulties, found a way to contribute to the party's election fund.

 

. 1525 + -

In 1996-97, the Calgary Flames contributed $4,433 to the election fund of the Liberal Party. The Ottawa Senators are now for sale because they find that public accounts are not involved enough. Yet, they have good attendance. The Ottawa Senators, which are also in financial difficulty, found $6,235 in 1996-97 to put in the election fund of the Liberal Party.

In this context, it is not surprising that the new Secretary of State for Amateur Sport is the new champion of professional sports and that he is doing everything to help these poor little fellows who lack money and whose owners are all millionaires. The democracy and transparency that the Liberal Party is talking about is to help these people.

I could go on and on. There are other organizations, such as the Pacific Black Cod Fishermen's Association, which contributed $10,000 to the election fund. The Corporation de développement économique de Sorel—Tracy contributed a smaller amount, a mere $291, to make it on the list, so that the Liberal Party could not say it did not contribute anything.

The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations contributed $5,330. These people have contracts and favours to ask of the government. Consequently, they must get themselves into a position where they can influence government decisions.

Political contracts were awarded by the Canada Information Office, which is another government agency. This office awarded contracts totalling $673,713. In 1996-97, in return for a number of contracts, of course, contributions totalling $52,701 went into the campaign fund.

Strangely, the higher the contract, the higher the amount that ends up in the campaign fund as well, most of the time. In years when there were no contracts awarded, very often there were no contributions either. It is a question of “scratch my back and I'll scratch yours”. Who comes out on top in all this? The taxpayers or the vested interests, the business people, the ones who are not the less fortunate in society?

This means that people who contribute a good deal to the slush fund have more influence over the government than the ordinary voter, who cannot put in his two cents worth most of the time. He is ignored because his little $5 or $10 contribution is not going to affect the government's decisions.

The only power the ordinary little taxpayers have is that they are many, they can consolidate their efforts, group together, demonstrate. As I often say, a poor little taxpayer on his own is a sorry sight, but a group of them demonstrating together can be a scary sight. But organizing is not easy. It takes resources, and to have that there must be funding. These people have no funding.

Why propose democratic, grassroots funding to the government? It is to allow all Canadians and all Quebecers to have a say, not because of their money, but because of the validity of their arguments.

 

. 1530 + -

Low and medium wage earners need tax cuts. If they had got together and given tens of millions of dollars to the government, they would have probably got their tax cut. But that is not the case.

One need only look at the people in the lobbies to see who influences the government. Most of the time, they are those who contribute the most to the Liberal Party slush fund.

Since the government is not prepared to accept the amendments, which would make the process democratic, we shall be forced to vote against this bill.

[English]

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker, although I was not on the list to speak today, I felt compelled to address this most important issue after my colleague from the Reform Party stood up and cited his reasons for unlimited spending with regard to our political process in Canada. I was absolutely amazed at some of his comments. I was somewhat confused as I was not sure whether it was a congressman or a member of parliament speaking.

I would like to cite a few recent experiences I have had with respect to our counterparts in the United States Congress and the unlimited spending which they presently enjoy. Although our friends in the Reform Party seem to align themselves quite often with their Republican friends in the U.S., I sometimes get confused and think that perhaps it is Republican congressmen who are writing their speeches.

It is surprising and scary that a member of parliament might rise in the House and suggest that unlimited spending is the way to go. It is absolute foolishness. Reform members are proposing a direction for this country that is several steps removed from democracy and is heading toward the road of empowering lobbyists and multinational corporations, the richest in Canada, so they can afford to run in elections.

I was in Washington recently with some of my friends from the opposition parties as well. We had an opportunity to have some discussions surrounding the political process in the United States and Canada. We were informed about the kinds of funding and spending which Congress candidates get involved with every two years. I was amazed and appalled at some of the responses I was getting from some of our counterparts in Congress. They were similar to the initiatives that the Reform Party is suggesting today.

We were informed of a couple of specifics. One congressman, without citing his name, had spent $300,000 on one single campaign. It had indirectly come through a farm union organization. Once that person was elected, I would question what his motives were. What would be his agenda? Would it be to represent all Americans or all Canadians if it was adopted here in Canada? I would suggest no.

With respect to my hon. colleague's remarks with regard to unlimited spending, I think it is absolutely shameful that he should suggest only the rich could participate in the electoral process in Canada. If he is that much in tune with U.S. style politics, perhaps he should consider sourcing out a political career south of the border rather than bringing their influences here.

I will keep my comments relatively brief rather than ramble on at length as the member opposite did. I would like to touch very briefly on the fact that, if I understood him properly, he was proposing that the number for party recognition in Canada—

Mr. David Price: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House. I think the hon. member speaking would like to have more people listening.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I realize that there is no quorum at this time. Call in the members.

 

. 1535 + -

And the bells having rung:

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have quorum so we will resume debate.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague in the Conservative Party for addressing the need for a greater audience to hear these words of wisdom with regard to our electoral process in Canada. I appreciate the fact that there is one Conservative member in the House to listen as well.

I was closing my comments on the absolute rhetoric that the Reform Party was feeding us and their U.S. style of politics or what they would like to see developed in Canada as a U.S. style of politics. The last point I wanted to address was the hon. member's intervention on re-addressing the level in order to attain political party status in Canada from 50 members down to 12.

I wonder whether the hidden motive and agenda of the Reform Party is it is concerned about whether it will be able to secure 50 candidates in the coming election. Certainly, as the polls are demonstrating, Reform members will have their work cut out for them.

In short, there absolutely must be a cap. We must follow the direction of the Liberal government with respect to the electoral process in Canada. To do otherwise would be to do a disservice to Canadians all across the country. Most certainly we would be doing a disservice to those who could not afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are spent in the United States by congressmen and friends of the Reform Party.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Madam Speaker, I did not know the Reformers had any friends.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Madam Speaker, apparently they have several friends down there on the Republican side.

In closing, I would suggest that we stand hard and true for Canadians and that we ensure that there are spending caps. This is not to be a land that is controlled by the rich but rather a land that is controlled by all Canadians. I could never support unlimited spending in our political process.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would appreciate it if you could check the list of speakers. If I am not mistaken, I believe it is my turn to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This not a point of order. As usual, members from each party speak in turn.

The hon. member for Elk Island.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence. I am pleased to speak here today.

It is extremely ironic that when we talk about the elections act what we are really debating is how democracy works in this country. We are debating a bill that has been brought forward by the government. The purpose in the bill seems to be much more related to improving the ever dwindling chances of the Liberals winning the next election. That is much more important to them as shown in this bill than it is to improve democracy in the country.

I want to address the question of funding limits. The member over there with great aplomb stood and said that the Reformers want unlimited spending and that is so terrible. I merely want to point out that they are the Liberals. The word liberal is a built-in, one word oxymoron because under the Liberals we have had less and less liberty in this country. They are trying to control us at every turn. They are saying to individuals and businesses that they are not permitted to spend their money at places of their own choice. The Liberals want to limit it. On the other hand, while the Liberals are telling the people they cannot spend their money on what they want to, the Liberal government wants to spend it for them.

 

. 1540 + -

What is the agenda of the Liberals? They want to take the money away from the taxpayers in the form of taxation and give it to themselves for their own election campaigns. They want to spend the taxpayers' money on their own election campaigns while they limit the ability of Canadians to put their money where the Canadians themselves would like to put it.

I am not sure I have the numbers right but if my memory serves me correctly, I believe that in total the Liberal government had in the 1997 election a spending limit of around $30 million. And those people over there are talking about limiting the spending of other people where they want to spend it.

I have a simple proposal. If we were to remove the public funding of the Liberal election campaign under the rules they are proposing and simply let people put their money without tax credits to the party or the individual they support, that would be democracy at work. The way it is right now, the Liberals tax it and as the governing party, the Liberals get basically three-fourths of the money for themselves to spend. That to me is a great affront.

I want to talk a bit about tax credits. This is not contemplated as a change in the bill. It is actually under the finance act and under the budget of the finance minister.

There are not terribly many Liberals paying any attention to me so perhaps I could address my comments to those thousands and thousands of people who are watching on CPAC. I know this is important information for them.

A lot of people do not realize that for every dollar a person spends on a political donation, it costs the government a dollar and twenty-five cents, if the amount of money donated is $100 or less. That is a very small amount but the fact is there is a total expenditure to the government of $125 for every $100 that is donated.

Here is how that works. A person who gives a $100 donation is eligible for a $75 immediate tax credit. So there is $75. Now if the party or the candidate uses it for campaign promotion in an election and if more than 15% of the votes are achieved under the present rules, they are eligible for a 50% rebate. So the $100 spent promoting the campaign will then—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: How much did you get in the last election?

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, can you please get that member to listen? I listened very carefully. I could have heckled when he was speaking, but I listened—

Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my colleague from Elk Island but the member for Simcoe—Grey is being so loud in his heckling that it is impossible to hear.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will again ask all hon. members to please listen with me to the debate taking place in the House right now.

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, thank you. My problem is that I was taught in my youth to be a courteous person and when someone asks me a question I normally stop talking and listen to that person. But I know that he is not on mike and I am. That really fouls up the people who are watching on television who of course outnumber the people in the House now by about about 10 million to one. So I think it is important for me to address the television because that is where the people are listening. I want to continue.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Talk to us, not the House.

Mr. Ken Epp: Well then shut up and listen.

I would like to address—

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, may I interrupt myself on a point of order? Could you please ask the member to leave the House if he—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will again ask the hon. member just in politeness to the other members to please listen to the debate with me.

 

. 1545 + -

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I really do believe in honest debate. I would like to put my point forward and other members have the right to put their points forward. Let us debate and then let us vote.

We are talking about democracy, but democracy will not be served by this bill either. There are approximately 200 amendments, many of which were agreed to by the parliamentary committee studying the Elections Act. The committee listened to many, many witnesses, but this legislation hardly reflects what was heard and what was decided by the parliamentary committee. It is totally out of character with what was recommended. Instead, what we have is a bill which is much more geared toward re-electing the Liberals than it is to improving democracy in the House.

One of the changes that I would like to see in the Elections Act, which I think is very important, concerns planning. At this time the government of the day can extend its mandate up to five years from the time of the previous election. We know what happened with the previous government. The Conservatives were elected in 1988. Normally the next election would have been in 1992. I was nominated as a candidate in 1992, in anticipation of a fall election.

I taught at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. I was just an ordinary Canadian then and I still am. I try to make enough money to support my family. With all the taxes in this country that is almost impossible. There I was. I did not have the option of leaving my job. I had to continue working. Yet, for months and months I did not know whether I could tell my employer, and hence serve my students best, that I was quitting my job to work full time as a candidate. I could not afford it. There was total uncertainty. I could not plan.

Meanwhile, members of parliament at that time who were not members of the government did not know when the election would be called. I would venture to say that most members on the government side did not know. The election date is an unknown. No one can plan their lives and arrange their affairs in a logical way.

I think it would be very important for us to pass the amendment that calls for an election to be held at fixed intervals. I recommend every four years. I think that would be a good balance between the cost of an election to the taxpayers and regular accountability.

The prime minister of the previous government was Brian Mulroney. He was followed by Kim Campbell. That Conservative government extended and postponed until the very last week when it finally had to call an election, and of course it was thoroughly trounced. Those Conservatives could have been held to account a year earlier. Perhaps Canadians would have benefited by getting rid of them sooner, although what they were replaced with is not much better in terms of the way they are handling the business of the country.

I also want to speak about the 50 candidate rule. I find it incredible that the government would try to institute something in the bill which has been struck down by the courts over and over again.

Some of my colleagues today have made reference to the fact that when it comes to protecting our children and stopping child pornography the Liberal government bows to the courts and says “The courts have spoken. We dare not do anything”. The Liberals acquiesce their responsibilities to Canadians to the courts. Yet, when the courts say that we cannot say to a group that because it does not have 50 candidates it is not a party, the Liberals say they will not listen to the courts, they will make it 50 anyway. We have had very authoritative witnesses appear before the committee who said that it will again be challenged in the courts and, as it was won before, it will be won again. It is not possible to sustain this in our legal system.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member's time has expired.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with great interest that I take part in the debate on motions in Group No. 2, which we introduced to improve Bill C-2 and to protect democracy in Canada. Speaking of democracy, you know that 50% plus one votes is all it takes to have a seat in this House.

 

. 1550 + -

Perhaps more than 50% plus one is required for you. But, if that were the case, I would be the first one to stand up for you if necessary to ensure you get your seat.

Coming back to party financing, we all know that money is everything. I learned it in politics, particularly in my last election campaign against a Liberal candidate. According to reporters in my riding, the Liberal Party spent between $400,000 and $500,000 to have its candidate elected.

This is indeed scandalous. Money changed hands under the table. It is very similar to what happened here, in the case involving the Minister of International Trade, where, in an affidavit, one of his generous contributors in the 1997 election, Louis-Philippe Rochon, stated under oath that he gave no less than $10,000 to the minister for his re-election, but the chief electoral officer's ledger showed only a donation of $1,000. So that leaves $9,000 unaccounted for.

How can we ask workers to pay their taxes honourably, not to work under the table, when the minister himself takes money under the table? Even worse, he used three limousines with a chauffeur and one bus with a driver and with signs on it to travel around his riding without reporting it as official campaign expenses. Now we have the chief electoral officer telling us to shut up, that it has been 18 months and he can unfortunately no longer discuss the matter.

This is odd. Our Liberal friends, starting with the member for Beauce, are hiding, they are afraid to talk, of course. Do you think Mr. Rochon gave $10,000 to the minister out of the goodness of his heart? Not exactly. He did it so his wife could get a job, a $94,000 job. Nothing is done for nothing. Mr. Rochon understood that he could reap substantial benefits from his $10,000 contribution.

I would like to say a few words about the Juneau affair. It is a really bizarre affair. André Juneau is a member of the federal National Battlefields Commission in Quebec City. Is he a volunteer? Far from it.

Mr. Juneau made contributions, personal contributions of course, but would present his expense account to the National Battlefields Commission, which would reimburse him without asking any questions. But if one looks at André Juneau's expenses, one realizes that he was a Grit, a Liberal, and that he only gave money to the Liberal Party or the Council for Canadian Unity.

Members will agree with me that this group is a little red around the edges. There was a $500 expenditure for a Liberal Party of Canada benefit cocktail and a $200 expenditure for a Council for Canadian Unity golf tournament. It pays, does not it? The Liberal Party of Quebec received $40.00. As we know, this organization comes under Quebec's legislation. As such, it cannot accept money from the National Battlefields Commission, let alone from a farmers' co-operative, businessmen or their firm.

What our friend Mr. Juneau would do is pay cash and get reimbursed by the federal government. This is called misappropriation.

The heritage minister said “I am ordering an inquiry”. The phone probably got busy, with Mr. Juneau calling the minister to say “Figure out how much you gave me between 1993 and 1995—he was appointed in 1995—and I will pay you back right away”.

As the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said last week “No evil seen, no evil done”. In the end, Mr. Juneau did not get rich at the expense of the National Battlefields Commission.

 

. 1555 + -

I would also like to remind the House of the Corbeil affair, back in the days of the very good former member for Hull-Aylmer. We remember him. He got a plum appointment to finish his days in luxury. Mr. Corbeil would trail around after the minister, after grant money was handed out under the transitional jobs fund.

He had the list of companies and, a few days or a few hours after the good Minister Massé granted $10,000, $20,000, $100,000 to businesses under the transitional jobs fund, he would knock on their door, asking for nothing less than cold cash, anywhere between $5,000 and $25,000. Apparently, money was falling through the cracks.

[English]

Mr. David Price: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is important that we look at quorum again. The Bloc member is presenting a very interesting case and there are very few Liberals listening.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will check into it right away.

And the count having been taken:

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is not a quorum. Call in the members.

[Translation]

And the bells having rung:

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I hope you stopped your clock, because I would like to conclude my speech. You will understand that it really bothered government members when I alluded to the Corbeil affair and the transitional jobs fund. Mr. Corbeil asked for cash in exchange for the grants received by industries. It seems that some of it would disappear when Mr. Corbeil got home.

Now, let me talk about a Quebec business or, rather, a national and even international company, Bombardier. I have a great deal of respect for Bombardier, because it invented the snowmobile, the four wheel drive. However, I am less impressed by its dealings with the government.

 

. 1600 + -

It says here that Bombardier was awarded a $2.8 billion contract, over a 20 year period, without a call for tenders, to maintain aircraft and train pilots for NATO. This was done without any public notice. But, and this is a strange coincidence, Bombardier is said to have contributed $234,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada—to the people opposite—since 1995.

J. Armand Bombardier started his business with nothing, in a garage behind his house. Today, the company is financing the Liberal Party, and we pay for this because there is no bidding. Is this the best deal? I do not know.

I asked the chief electoral officer to show me the books. Of course I am not allowed to show them. Earlier, I checked to see who were the generous contributors to the Liberal Party. I discovered that my friend, the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, was not overly generous, with a $450 contribution to the Liberal Party in 1998.

I was surprised, however, and not at all pleased to see that the Coopérative fédérée de Québec—of which I am a member and I will give a call to its CEO as early as tomorrow because I was not consulted on this—gave $3,783 to the Grits—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien:—$3,783, and nothing for the Progressive Conservative Party. Nothing at all.

For Bombardier, the figure was $76,584 in 1998. The members opposite will tell us they are the defenders of the weak and the oppressed. They are funded by billionaires and they think only of them, to fill their pockets, and nothing for unemployed workers.

In Frontenac—Mégantic alone, we have been cut $21 million annually in EI premiums, when money is going—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am stricken in my conscience. When the Liberal member was heckling me I used words that are not normally in my vocabulary. I would like to apologize to him and to the House. It was unintended, and I apologize.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Very well. It will be so recorded.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill. This is a very important issue. It is one that has concerned the Bloc Quebecois for a long time.

On March 18, 1994, we introduced the following motion:

    That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

This motion was debated, but it was defeated by parliament. We returned to the charge in 1997 with the same result.

Today, it is clear that the government does not want to democratize the legislation on funding of political parties. Ultimately, it means that companies can be in a special position to influence the government, and this is not acceptable.

The Bloc Quebecois can speak from personal experience because Quebec has undergone a massive change with respect to funding of political parties. We have seen the results: there is now grassroots funding in Quebec. This has resulted in a much more democratic debate, a greater voice for those unable to influence the government by throwing thousands of dollars at it, for those who have only their arguments and their points of view to get the government's attention. The bottom line is that we can obtain the best possible legislation for the public.

 

. 1605 + -

This has a direct impact on the type of legislation that is passed. This has also an impact on the steps taken afterwards. It is much more a reflection of the democratic will than what has transpired in this House.

I have been sitting here for six years and, with respect to several bills, I have wondered what the government's motivation was to not remedy the situation and I found part of the answer with the party financing issue.

I will take an example that I know very well, that of the employment insurance. These past few years, EI premiums have gone down. How did these reductions come about? Perhaps they should have been bigger, but who get them? The people who contribute, among other things, to the financing of political parties.

As far as the unemployed, those who pay the premiums are concerned, the expected results were not achieved, even with a series of logical arguments. Representations were made by the people, whose voice is heard only every four years.

At the last federal election, the people sent a message to the current government concerning the amendments to be made to the Employment Insurance Act, and we are still waiting for action on the changes that need to be made.

I think there is a reason for this, and that it has to do with the financing of political parties. Some people do not seem to have the say they should have in this process, and this has to do with the democratic foundations of our society and the principles governing the financing of political parties.

In that sense, the member for Trois-Rivières has proposed an interesting amendment, which would allow low income individuals and students to make contributions to political parties and to get a refund even if they do not pay the tax amounts required to become eligible to such refund.

It is like a negative tax through which they would indicate which political party they favour and want to give it their support, while not depriving them of the right they currently have to finance a political party and to partially benefit from the tax deduction.

To get a tax credit, one must pay a certain amount in taxes, and this discriminates against this category of people. The amendment seeks to democratize the financing of political parties, while the bill before us will not.

It would obviously be a very important change in the way federal political parties do things. I personally experienced this with the Bloc in two elections and between elections: knocking on doors, collecting $20, $30 or $40, depending on funding coming from the grassroots, making this a rule for ourselves. It is a democratic approach which requires a great deal of efforts to produce the desired results.

This obviously gives us a complete margin of manoeuvre compared to the way of doing things adopted by the federal parties. Companies and unions invest in several federal political parties, and this is something of an impediment to democratic debate.

An adjustment period would be necessary for parties that did not use to do it in the past, to allow them to reach this quality of financing in terms of democratic financing, but I think that after a few years the results would be worthwhile.

If we had followed up on the proposition made in 1994 or on the one made in 1997 asking the government to enact legislation restricting to individuals the right to contribute to a federal party campaign fund and limiting to $5,000 per year the contributions made, or on the one adopted in 1997 that said “The House criticizes the government for refusing to proceed to an in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of the federal political parties that can bring about various abuses” and if the House had listened to the Bloc Quebecois, all the parties represented in this House today and other parties that could have been created as a result of this movement to make political party financing more democratic would be much better off.

I urge the members from other provinces to come to Quebec and see how all this works. This process was adopted many years ago and it has brought about an important change in electoral and political practices.

 

. 1610 + -

Nobody in Quebec would want to see a return to the old practices, to the brown envelopes and to the much more dubious practices. People judge their elected officials' credibility, and it is often said that elected officials lack credibility. One of the best ways to move forward would be to allow financing by the people, a financing method that ensures honesty and an appearance of justice, because there is a question of justice involved here. We have to be able to demonstrate, through these methods, that our hands are not tied by those who finance political parties.

We have seen similar situations in the past, particularly with the banks and their surpluses and the fact that the government is doing nothing to address this problem directly. There are difficulties that impact on our daily lives and sometimes explain why governments have done nothing on these issues.

I believe the Bloc Quebecois has shown the way in the last few years. However, we must use the same weapons as our opponents. If the government does not listen to us, I think it will have demonstrated that it does not want improved democracy. It will have demonstrated that it wants to continue to be controlled by hidden forces and to send Canadians the message that it does not want improved democracy and that it prefers the kind of democracy that put it where it is, in office, which explains why it does not want to change it.

I think the Bloc Quebecois, with its amendments to the bill, is contributing in a major way to the improvement of democracy in Canada. This will allow real debate, where the representatives of the people will express the views of all Canadians and not only of those who contribute to the financing of their party. Therefore, I would like to ask the majority in the House to consider our amendments and to design a financing system that will be adequate and enhance democracy in our society.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam Speaker, at a recent Liberal Party fundraiser about 1,500 people paid big money for the privilege of wining and dining with Canada's political elite. That privilege did not come cheap. Each plate cost $350. For the Liberals that is a $500,000 jackpot.

In a CBC report on The National of just a few weeks ago the whole issue of Bill C-2 was raised. The member for Wentworth—Burlington was featured as being an outspoken advocate against his own government on Bill C-2. It was quite amazing. He had a lot of concerns, some of which are shared by members of the opposition. He vowed to fight his own government tooth and nail on this bill. What a surprise.

I do not hear that coming from that side today. What I hear is bunch of rhetoric from some members. Other members are engaged in debate. Members from the Liberal side such as the member for Simcoe—Grey stated earlier in the House that we have to keep 50 candidates in place because that is the rule of this place.

I remind him that rule was put in place not many years ago by the same Liberal group. Because that was brought in, in an earlier bill, does it need to remain in this bill as well? We would argue no. That is why we have moved an amendment to Group No. 2 to make that change. Yet we have a Liberal member apparently saying that because it was in the old bill it has to be in the new bill. He stands and huffs and puffs about American style politics, congressmen and all kinds of other things that have no relevance to this debate.

As I just mentioned from the CBC news report, his own party benefits from the sphere of influence which he purports to speak against. When $500,000 are being made in one fundraising dinner it is an extreme amount of money, and the member for Wentworth—Burlington is arguing against that kind of thing. This is what that Liberal said on The National:

    Taxpayer funded organizations have no business trying to influence the public agenda by spending money on supporting one party or one candidate in a campaign. This is clearly wrong. I would exclude them from campaign funding, which is what this particular act entails, and making contributions to political parties.

 

. 1615 + -

He goes on to say “This is totally unacceptable. You just can't do that. You are setting a precedent that is wildly dangerous. It is just wildly dangerous”.

This is from a member of the Liberal Party, the member for Wentworth—Burlington, speaking to Bill C-2 so that his own colleagues would hear and listen. Yet, they are not taking action on these things.

Amendments have been made in committee to this bill. One was put forward by my colleague from North Vancouver, who has worked a great deal on the bill trying to improve it. His amendment deals with electronic voting. What a concept. This is something which municipalities across the country are using.

A recent civic election was held in my community in British Columbia which used electronic balloting. It was not difficult and not overly costly. It improved the process. This idea was presented to the government, which fought against it. The government finally conceded to take a look at it and indicated that it would study it and perhaps look at it in the future. It lost a golden opportunity to take concrete action to make the changes now when we already know there are some systems working very well across our country which use electronic voting.

Under the current law a party must have 50 candidates to be recognized. We have put forward a motion which would require that a party have 12 candidates to become a registered party and run in a general election. That only makes sense. We know that in this place 12 members are required to form an official party. The amendment is supported by other parties in the House.

I heard some noise from my Conservative colleagues. In the last parliament there were only two Conservative members. That would have been troubling for them. Of course they were not an official party at that point. Perhaps that is why they take issue with this amendment.

It is very clear that Liberal members are losing an opportunity once again to make substantive changes to something which needs to be fixed.

In the recent civic election held in my hometown of Mission one of the city councillors who was elected is blind. She was asked during the campaign if it was difficult to run for civic politics as a city councillor when she does not have her sight. The councillor elect, Jenny Stevens, said “You don't need sight to be a city councillor; you need vision”. Those are very profound words. I think the same holds true in this place.

The Liberals might have their sight, but they are certainly lacking in vision, not only in this area but in many others. They have fallen short of the mark once again to make the substantive changes necessary to reform the Canada Elections Act. That is why we have put forward so many amendments.

We have offered suggestions to improve the legislation. My colleagues have mentioned that lawsuits are pending based on the passing of this legislation. If the legislation goes ahead without amendment there will be challenges in the courts, which were previously undertaken when similar legislation was introduced. Now these types of actions will be taken again.

The Liberal members are not heeding advice to make the necessary changes to put in effect an Elections Act that would solve the problems that were pointed out by so many. This bill again falls short, as does the government, in so many ways. The Liberals are, as Jenny Stevens said, lacking vision. They might have their sight, but they do not have a very clear vision of what it is they would like to do. Maybe at one point they did, but they have lost their way over the years. As a result, they are missing the opportunity to make substantive changes.

 

. 1620 + -

Another point that has been raised by my colleagues through numerous amendments is the idea of giving more money to parties to encourage more female candidates.

The government was moving ahead in that direction, but it has backed off on the idea. However, amendments were put forward by other parties that would go in that direction, allowing increased reimbursement of election expenses for parties that run more female candidates.

Most of us see in this place that it is a laudable notion for all to get involved in the political process, whether male or female, but certainly we want to have a system that is equal for all and treats everybody in the same manner.

Bill C-2 falls short in many different ways.

Another point I would like to make is that this bill went directly to committee before second reading, with the intention, and perhaps this was the motivation, of keeping it out of the public spotlight despite the claim by the minister that the process was designed to accommodate meaningful amendments. When meaningful amendments were proposed in committee very few of them were accepted, leaving us with the question of why the bill was put forward in this way. We think it is because the government did not want to stand the task of defending parts of the bill that are deficient in the full light of public scrutiny.

The government House leader travelled across the country not long ago to talk about Bill C-2. He said that the bill had the support of all parties, when in fact that was not the case. That is very clear when we see the amendments that have been put forward by our party and by other parties, and by the government member for Wentworth—Burlington. He is so opposed to some parts of the legislation that he has put forward a number of amendments.

Imagine that, a member of the government unable to influence his own group within committee and his own colleagues in pointing out the problems with the bill that he took a public stand on national television to speak out. Who knows what will happen to him now that he has dared to speak out in public against his own group on Bill C-2. Obviously there is a division on the Liberal side on Bill C-2. I think those cracks are starting to show, not only with this bill but in other areas as well. The group without vision cannot contain its own members and incorporate the suggestions, some of them good, from its own group.

I urge the government to take another look and to implement the changes necessary to make this an effective bill for now and for the future.

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am proud to have the opportunity to stand today to support the motions put forward by my colleague for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and to speak on the important issues that these motions raise.

Transparency is one of those buzzwords of the nineties that everybody wants to have. The motions which deal with the disclosure of the names of donators is an excellent method of ensuring transparency within our electoral process.

Institutionalizing disclosure, an effective means of increasing transparency, in such a highly regarded piece of legislation as the Elections Act would institutionalize the concept of transparency in the minds of all Canadians. It would prove that transparency is a goal that we all should be working toward in our businesses and systems of governance.

 

. 1625 + -

These amendments are necessary because currently we do not have an electoral system which is totally transparent in terms of those people, companies or organizations which donate amounts of over $100 to political campaigns. It seems to me that the aim of transparency was already enshrined in law, but in practice some donators have avoided having their names published by Elections Canada.

Currently organizations with business numbers can put those numbers in the place of the business or CEO name on the declaration of donations. These motions would be unnecessary if Elections Canada and Canadians had access to the names behind those numbers, but we do not. If an organization chooses to use its business number instead of disclosing its name, we have no avenue to find out who it is that is behind that donation.

I support my colleague in calling on all members of the House to support this motion to amend the Elections Act because I believe that Canadians want to know. Canadians want to know who donates to what party or parties. Canadians want more transparency, and with these motions we could make the Elections Act more transparent.

Transparency increases accountability. Part of the reason Canadians feel a kind of disillusionment with the electoral process, and politics in general, is because they do not believe that the process is accountable to them, the voters.

I believe it is our job in the House to make sure that the electoral process and politics in general are accountable to all Canadians. I call on all of my colleagues in the House to support these motions, which we believe would not only increase transparency but also the accountability of the electoral system.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2 even though I have a lot of problems with this bill.

I do not want to repeat what my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois have already said so eloquently and thoughtfully. However, I remind members that electoral reform should essentially be based on three principles, namely accessibility, fairness and transparency.

I do not see any of these things in Bill C-2. How can we talk about transparency when the government maintains political party financing by businesses? How can we talk about fairness and accessibility when the government is unable to propose something that would encourage women's involvement in politics?

I decided to get involved in politics not only to represent women here, in the House of Commons, but also to find a way for them to get involved in politics themselves. I do not have the impression that the government is doing anything to facilitate that.

This is why, a few months ago, I came up with the idea of including in the Canada Elections Act the provision of a tax incentive to political parties to encourage them to get more women involved in politics. The idea was to amend the act so that a registered political party would be reimbursed part of its election expenses when at least 30% of its elected candidates are women. The reimbursement would be equal to the percentage of women candidates elected from that party up to a maximum of 50%. This would not change the reimbursement of 22.5% of expenses already provided for in the act, which means that political parties that had less than 30% of women candidates elected would still receive the reimbursement to which they are now entitled, which is 22.5%.

Financially, the electoral reform proposed in Bill C-2 is not more equitable than the previous legislation.

I am truly disappointed to see that all the efforts that went into trying to have this amendment adopted were dismissed out of hand by the government. Only a royal recommendation would have allowed this clause to be added to Bill C-2, and the government House leader, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, had indicated some willingness—however limited—to include a financial incentive to encourage more women to enter politics.

Noticing this willingness, I personally wrote to the minister to inform him that only a royal recommendation would allow the clause I suggested to be added to Bill C-2.

 

. 1630 + -

I wrote to him on November 1 regarding my amendment. I said “As you know, the rules and practices of the House prevent us from presenting such an amendment without previously receiving the royal recommendation. Therefore, I invite you to look at our amendment and obtain, as Queen's counsel, the necessary royal recommendation that would unable us to study it and pass it during the debate at report stage of Bill C-2”.

Therefore, the government has known for quite a while that it alone could move an amendment to this effect. The minister in charge of Bill C-2 suggested he supported such a provision, but he did not have the political courage to act.

I would like to congratulate my colleagues from Laval Centre and from Verchères—Les-Patriotes for their hard work on this issue.

My Bloc colleagues and myself have repeatedly tried to convince the government House leader to give the royal recommendation. We were taken for a ride. First he said he was still looking for support for this proposal. We gave him names. I talked to several of his colleagues, men and women alike, and several of them assured us of their support. Even an associate professor of political science and a specialist in this area appeared before the committee in support of our amendment, describing it as the minimum.

This professor, Manon Tremblay, said, if I may quote her “Voluntary measures and incentives are the ones most likely to succeed. In fact, without a real willingness from the political parties to encourage the election of women, the proportion of male and female MPs will not change. This willingness needs to be stimulated by government incentives”.

It is true political courage is needed in order to impose a measure that does not seem self-evident to everyone. We need and be counted if there are to be any changes. It seems the government is incapable of this.

Worse yet, instead of telling me he did not have the courage to support this measure, the government leader informed me that the committee had not made any recommendations to it on this.

Now really. The minister has done his job long enough to know full well that committees do not make recommendations for bills. They examine a bill clause by clause. The committee also needed the royal recommendation. So much for transparency.

While this government goes around patting itself on the back about our being the best country of the world to live in, it does not even have the political will to encouraged enhanced democracy. Other parliaments have already adopted various measures to increase women's involvement in politics, but this government will not raise a finger.

It will, of course, be one of the governments making the most noise about equality of the sexes at the next international conference on women. It will be one of the ones crying the loudest about the scandal of there being so few women in politics. But what has it to say in concrete terms? Nothing. All fine speeches and no action.

Of course, the government House leader travelled across Canada, from coast to coast, to explain his reform and listen to what the public had to say. But did he hear? Did he note that democracy needed solid footing such as parity and representation? No.

While women represent 52% of the population, they account for only 20% of the members of the House of Commons. According to the most conservative estimates, if no steps are taken, it will take until 2040 for parity to be achieved between men and women in parliament.

I would like to point out that none of us will know what it is to have parity in parliament if things continue the way they are going. The government has just missed a fine opportunity to leave its mark in history. I mean in constructive terms. I hope that history will record that this government missed a golden opportunity to promote democracy and especially representation. It is pathetic.

At each election, this government looks for women. Well, now is the time to act, and not on the eve of an election. I want to quote Pierre Gravel, an editorial writer in La Presse, who wrote the following on Friday, November 12:

    They start by looking at the list of candidates of all the parties to see which has managed to persuade the most women to wade into battle. Then, once the results are known, they agree to deplore the fact that so few were elected. Then the matter is closed, until the next election.

Those are the thoughts of an editorialist who supported our action.

 

. 1635 + -

In conclusion, I would like to offer another quote that I think accurately reflects our thinking. Pierre F. Côté, the former chief electoral officer in Quebec said “In the area of democracy, for there to be democracy, there has to be the appearance of democracy”.

[English]

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to Bill C-2 and the Group No. 2 amendments.

There is truly so much to say to this group of amendments that I will not be able to deal with all of the amendments and their implications. However I would like to start by dealing with Motion No. 87 which refers to the requirements for registered party status. I hope to get beyond that but I am not at all certain that will be the case.

It is so interesting that the government, based on what is convenient at the time and what suits its agenda, will refer to court decisions in quite differing ways depending on the circumstances. Quite often the government will point to a court decision and indicate that it just cannot go a certain way with legislation because the court has spoken. The government forgets that it is this institution which should be determining and making law in the country, not the courts.

In this case the government has said it has heard the Ontario court ruling which struck down sections of the elections act which put in place the requirement that parties have 50 candidates in an election to remain or become a registered political party for purposes of the elections act and the candidates could list their party affiliation on the ballot. The government looked at that and in this case said, “That really does not suit our agenda. That is not what makes it better for incumbent MPs. That is not what makes it better for a governing party. In fact if we were to listen to this court decision and lower the number, that would go against our political purposes”.

That kind of thinking which goes into its decision when it comes to this requirement for party status in the elections act is quite different from the thinking we commonly hear from the Liberal Party when it says, “The court has ruled. Our hands are tied”. I wonder why there is such a difference in approach on the part of the government depending on the situation, depending on the circumstances, depending on its political agenda. That is exactly the reason. It depends on the government's political agenda as to how it views court decisions which affect legislation.

In this case the Liberal government has said, “It is really not convenient for us to point to that court decision in this case, so we are going to ignore it. We are going to pretend it did not happen and not even try to change legislation with that in mind. We are just going to go ahead and put in place what we want”. What the government wants is to make it so that a political party will have to have at least 50 candidates running in an election before it can have the party name on the ballot. By the way, the court in its ruling said that any group which has two candidates running in an election should be a recognized party.

This is what really concerns me about what has happened with regard to this clause of this flawed bill. The bill we are debating today and the amendments which we are debating specifically point out clearly that it is flawed, flawed, flawed legislation. Bill C-2 is badly flawed legislation.

 

. 1640 + -

The government had the opportunity, and still does in fact, to just say, “We made a mistake. We want to back off and do things differently”. It has an opportunity to consider an apparent compromise which seems to have been offered by several of the witnesses before the committee and by political parties in the House. The compromise is that instead of recognizing the two candidates running as a political party, there are some practical reasons for going beyond that. Instead of that, it seems to be acceptable that 12 candidates running for a political party should suit the needs.

I believe a member of the Communist Party of Canada, and others who have a small number of candidates running now, said at committee that they would probably agree with the number 12. It is the number used to recognize a political party in the House. Does it not make sense to use the number 12 for election purposes to recognize a party on the ballot?

There seems to be a will to compromise on this. From people who appeared at committee, certainly from the Reform Party and from some other political parties, there seems to be a common ground. We accept the number 12 which is far closer to what the courts ruled.

I agree that the House can make changes. This House is the body that makes law in this country. Certainly we should not be absolutely bound by what the courts said, but the court made that ruling for a reason. Let us look at the reason. Let us look at what the government has proposed, which is that we go back to the level of 50 candidates, which would favour the incumbents, particularly the governing party. An elections act should not favour any candidate. It should not favour any party, yet that is clearly what this is for.

The apparent compromise or agreement from several parties involved is we arrived at the number 12. That is one of the amendments in this group which we will fully support.

Had the government bothered to consult on this issue, an acceptable compromise certainly would have been the number 12. That opinion is not just from the Communist Party. That opinion was expressed by a constitutional lawyer, Gerald Chipeur, before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. He said:

    You can have a party with two people. And clearly, that is what the courts will ultimately conclude again. To come back with 50 candidates just won't fly.

A constitutional lawyer appeared before the committee and said that the government can go ahead with this. It can be stubborn as a political party and ignore all the input from all the other parties involved, including the opposition parties, including the political parties that are not represented in the House and others who have an interest in this issue. It can go ahead and ram this legislation through the House.

We know the government can do that. It can completely ignore the opposition parties. But on a bill which governs elections, why and how would a governing party choose to ram a piece of legislation like that through? That is the direction we are going on this issue. It is completely unacceptable and as Mr. Chipeur points out, it will lead to challenges down the road. The government can ram it through, but the courts will strike it down.

Why on earth did the government not just accept this compromise in this area in particular? It certainly would have been easy to do. We can see that the government cares very little about democracy.

We have seen that in the Nisga'a issue. Reform Party members have over 400 amendments that we are going to be voting on later today. We said that if the government would give us two things we would be willing to change our opinion. Allow the people of British Columbia a referendum. That is as democratic as one can get. Let them have their say on this deal. That was the first thing. Second, if we are going to put it through anyway, at least let us make sure it is not enshrined in a constitutional change that we cannot turn back.

 

. 1645 + -

The government cares little about democracy, as is shown in the elections act and its unwillingness to accept changes such as this very basic change. The government is so undemocratic it refuses to do that. It is unfortunate and will lead to problems down the road if it continues to ram this through.

I hope the government will reconsider, back off and listen to the opposition parties and others. Let us have an elections act which is accepted by Canadians and by political parties in the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-2. I would like to repeat what amendments to the elections act the Bloc Quebecois would like to see. I will primarily deal with the provisions on political party financing that govern our democratic system.

First, the financing of political parties' campaigns by corporations is not a good thing. It is somewhat unfair that people who have to defend ideas must first get financing and that such financing can be easier to obtain when major corporations like these ideas.

Why do I raise this issue? Because nowadays elections are not held in the same fashion as they were in the days of my grandfather, let alone when Canada was first established. I will give a short historical outline for the benefit of those who wonder where the riding of Bonaventure—Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok is located.

If people check in the history books, they will see that when elections were called in the 1860s, there was always a delay between the time the election was called in Ottawa or Montreal, and the time it was called in the Gaspé. As we will see later on in the history book, the election was called three months later in the Gaspé. Sometimes, when people were voting in the Gaspé, the election had already been held in other areas and we knew who would form the government. This is somewhat anecdotal, but it is a reminder that, in those days, people used horses and sailboats.

The level of expenses is not the same, now. I must cover a large territory. Members have to fly. It takes a lot of money to cover these costs. Moreover, members of parliament no longer communicate with their constituents by stepping up on a wooden box on a pier. We must rely on the media. We must rely on television, radio and the newspapers. All this takes a lot of money.

If I do not belong to a political party whose ideas or projects are what big corporations are looking for, that is that. As a member, I will not receive large contributions.

That is why I agree with the Bloc Quebecois member that the corporate funding being allowed is becoming unfair or anti-democratic.

I would like to talk about how we operate in Quebec. René Lévesque left us a wonderful political heritage in the form of the Loi sur le financement populaire. I believe it was Bill 87. This legislation says that only a voter may contribute to a duly registered political party up to a set amount. That amount is $5,000.

 

. 1650 + -

Since the Bloc Quebecois has been in Ottawa, this is the third time it has tried to get other parties in this House, and all Canadians, to give some thought to the fairness of allowing only voters to contribute, and setting a maximum on that contribution.

The first time we tried to get the House to consider this idea was through Motion No. 180 moved by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour on March 18, 1994. It read as follows:

    That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

That was in March 1994. A little later, during an opposition day, on October 9, 1997, our leader also raised the issue, moving a motion that read as follows:

    That this House condemns the attitude of the Government, which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of federal political parties even though the existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.

If I am not mistaken, all opposition parties supported the motion put forward on that allotted day but, once again, the government opposite rejected it.

Today, with Bill C-2, it is the third opportunity we have to talk some sense into government members.

I wonder why the members opposite are so afraid. Maybe it is because the system is indeed unfair, but I would like to raise a point that makes it even more unfair. A party that is funded by the people turns to people who do not necessarily have a lot of money or enough income to pay taxes. However, these people want to have a say in the way the country is run.

For five dollars, a person can become a member of the Bloc Quebecois. For five dollars, a person can express his or her opinion and tell the general assembly what kind of society he or she would like to see and what kind of government he or she thinks we should have. If that person does not have enough income to pay taxes, he or she makes a simple five dollar donation and does not get anything back.

Under the legislation as it is now, a person who gives $100 and who is lucky enough to work will get 75% back, which means $75. So it is a double injustice. Large corporations are allowed to make contributions, it is good for them and they can deduct that amount from their income in their tax return. People in my region say that it should be one voter, one contributor. For the same five dollar contribution, the person who cannot file a tax return because he or she does not earn enough money cannot have his or her say.

Who will represent the homeless, who will represent the least advantaged members of society if they have no chance of being heard? It is as if these people's votes and voices were not of equal value. This proposed amendment was brought to committee by my colleague from Trois-Rivières and I am told that it was defeated.

When I travel around, I hear people say “You politicians no longer have any credibility”. When there is a chance to regain even a bit of credibility here in the House of Commons, it is like a desert across from me. Almost nothing to be heard. A person could almost hear a pin drop.

Is this because I am right or is it because they want to miss the boat again? It is distressing. If the people of Gaspé could be here and look into the faces of the people who are looking across at us, they would see that they show no emotion, no reaction. They would say “You weren't speaking the right official language, what did you do wrong?”

I am therefore trying once again to make the people over there make the effort to re-examine the workings of democracy.

 

. 1655 + -

Today it is a term that is in vogue and I will not fall into that trap, but I do invite them to kindly take this into consideration when voting on Bill C-2, to let the spirit of the amendments pass, to vote in favour of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, precisely in order to improve the financing of political parties.

If we have missed that chance once again, I do not know what the future will bring. Have no fear, however, people with the right to vote will again express themselves in the next election. Perhaps those who have refused to listen to us will pay the price for not listening.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will start by quoting my mother, who was a very good mom. She said “Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are.”

My mother told me that regularly when I brought new friends home. Since I am a politician, I will say to my daughter “Tell me who is funding you, and I will tell you who you are defending”. I believe this applies quite well to the Liberal government before us.

I will sum it up in a few words by saying that democracy will probably be somewhat at risk if we are not careful about this. It is not only during elections that it occurs.

The big contributors to the Liberal Party's coffers have four years to see how their money is spent, how the government reacts. So, I repeat “Tell me who is funding you, and I will tell you who you are defending”. It is quite clear, actually, with the list of things that go on, with the list of sources of funding. Thank God, this list is published by the chief electoral officer.

I believe it is worth raising this issue. With the debate on this bill, we can afford to raise the whole matter.

Another strange thing happened to me when I was elected back in 1993. A few months before the election, people sensed there was massive support for the Bloc in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois was very strong at the time. A millionaire whose name I will not mention—

An hon. member: It is still very strong.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, the Bloc is still very strong, and it is getting stronger every day.

At that time, the millionaire came to see me and told me “I have a problem with certain lands and I think that you will become a member of parliament. They are federal lands and I would like, if possible, to give you money to get some guarantees concerning those lands”. He was using diplomatic language but I could easily crack his code.

I told him “When you are in a polling booth, how many votes do you have?” I had a clear idea of what public interest defence meant. If those lands had been set aside in the public interest, they were not to be sold to private interests. I could not accept money, which could have been a legal donation anyway, to favour the private sector.

There comes a time in a democracy where one must put public interests before private interests. Unfortunately, when one looks at the list of contributors to the Liberal Party, one has to wonder whether it is not the opposite.

We strive to do things differently. In the Bloc, our hands are not tied. Tonight, people from communities 20 or 25 kilometres from my constituency office will take their car and go pick up the $5 or $10 contribution from someone else and that will be registered in the books according to the rules. These are not contributions like the ones the people across the way get from businesses or organizations with special interests, who will then ask the Liberal government to stand up for those interests.

I have other examples. There is Canada Post, under our good friend André Ouellet, a former Liberal minister, as we know. This is not about astronomical sums, but it is the principle of the thing. How is it that crown corporations are contributing to federal political parties? They are not contributing to the Bloc.

I will give another example, that of the Business Development Bank of Canada, which contributed the small sum of $126. I am naming it as a start. Together the seven sisters, the major banks, give big bucks to the Liberal Party.

 

. 1700 + -

When I say “Tell me who is funding you and I will tell you who you are defending”, I am saying that the Liberal government is not defending the unemployed and the workers. It remains silent on the subject of the banks, which have been making huge profits in recent years now, billions of dollars in profits. You know what? The banks are now involved in a race to lay people off. Who is going to be stuck with the layoffs? Society. Where is public interest in this? This government has its hands tied by the major banks, the big corporations and its own crown corporations when it accepts gifts of money.

Do members know what I am told when I approach the Royal Bank for a contribution? “Mr. Bachand, there is a cheque for you here in keeping with federal law”. Yes, but we do not accept contributions from companies, because we want to keep our hands free. They will be pleased to give the money to the Liberal and Conservative candidates. If the practices of political funding do not change, democracy will be at risk.

There are other examples. How is it that the Montreal and Vancouver airports, which now deal at arm's length with the government, are contributing to the party coffers? It makes no sense. How is it that hockey clubs like the Calgary Flames and the famous Ottawa Senators are contributing to political parties? These are millionaire clubs that want to pay no property tax on their arenas. Of course, they only take U.S. dollars.

The owners of these clubs give money to the party, and then ask the minister to speak in their favour. They say “Now, you will have to forgo taxes. We are a millionaires club and we are going to run cities. If you want us to perform in front of you, you will have to shelter us from property and other kind of taxes”.

Where is the public interest in all that? I am asking the Liberal Party. Is it not tying its own hands? Is it ever going to defend the unemployed and the workers, or will it continue to defend big corporations?

Another very important crown corporation is the Indian Claims Commission. It is very powerful. Native people who have problems go before this commission, but they complain it only has an advisory role and no real power or authority. However, I noticed that the Indian Claims Commission gave $638 to the Liberal Party. On what basis? How could the native people trust it after that? Would they not feel, when they bring their case to the commission, that it is serving the best interests of a political party?

There are several other examples of democracy getting it in the neck. Fortunately, every four years, money is not the only thing that speaks at the polling booth. Luckily there are parties like ours that are a little bit more—I would not say conventional, that is the people across the way—but more open-minded, more keen to defend public interest.

When we make campaign promises to help workers, the unemployed and society in general, people believe us because we accepted $5 and $10 contributions, as my executive will do tonight. The limit is high enough, up to $5,000, but that is for individual contributions. We are not backed by corporations.

I admit there may be the odd corporate contribution here and there, but in the last election, I was proud to see that my record showed only individual contributions. There were no corporate contributions. I was not attached to anyone, I was there to defend the public interest, and I think it is the only way to protect democracy.

This is why I call upon my colleagues on the government side. The Bloc Quebecois has put forward amendments, which they should support. We should put political party financing in order once and for all and follow the example of René Lévesque, who did just that in Quebec.

 

. 1705 + -

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-2, the revised Canada Elections Act. Canadians see voting not only as a treasured right but also as a civic obligation, a way of acting on democratic principles and protecting our stake in Canada's political life.

It was a long struggle for Canadians to get elected governments accountable to the people. It is still a struggle, as the modern version of the family compact sits just right of the Speaker, still content to try and fiddle with the rules to give the governing party the advantage and to prescribe condescendingly what is good for the voter and prescribe how voters need to be controlled and managed.

Reformers in the Chamber today carry on the struggle to expand the boundary of democracy, to test the limits of the controlling establishment, and to bring ever better levels of responsible and accountable government to the nation. The early reformers, drawing upon the ideas of the great reform bills in England and the American experiment to the south, sought to modernize parliamentary institutions. They were following the long historical themes of emancipation and freedom that down through the centuries had been purchased at such a great price.

As a modern day Reformer who strives to be true to that spirit of change and democratic improvement, I recall the great Canadian reformers of the past from which we all benefit. I am reminded of the early reformers who struggled and succeeded so I could stand here today. There were great reformers like Joseph Howe and James Uniake of Nova Scotia, Charles Fisher and Lemuel Wilmot of New Brunswick, George Coles of Prince Edward Island, Louis LaFontaine, Augustin Morin and Louis Papineau of Lower Canada, William Baldwin and his son Robert, Sir Francis Hinks and William Lyon Mackenzie of Upper Canada. Thanks to them and other reformers, Canadians acquired the right not only to elect assembly members but also to choose their governments.

Examining more closely the vote itself in Confederation in 1867, the British North America Act said that the control of the federal franchise, the vote, would remain a provincial matter until parliament decided otherwise. A show of men's hands in a public square elected men to the Canadian parliament under very provincial rules. We did not get a fully secret ballot until the election of 1878 when finally the election took place on just one day instead of many.

Parliament finally acted in 1885 to fully take responsibility for voting but just like now, to modernize things, the Liberals were against it. In fact it was Prime Minister Laurier who turned back the clock of progress just 13 years later and undid the federal responsibility for the vote. In those days property or income based qualifications effectively prevented large segments of the working population from voting. This was the Liberal Party thinking at the time.

It was a struggle to gradually have economic barriers removed. The bill before us today still has those arrogant tendencies of the reluctant democrats, the Liberals. It took until 1917 for the Conservative federal government to finally assume again the national federal responsibility of the vote. It took until 1920 to provide universal access for the vote without reference to property ownership or other exclusionary requirements except age and citizenship. It took until 1921 for the first federal election in which women voted under universal franchise open to all over 21 years and Agnes MacPhail became the first female member of parliament that year.

Many were still disenfranchised by administrative arrangements and some groups were disqualified on racial, religious or economic grounds. Diefenbaker finally extended the franchise unconditionally to status Indians. Eighteen year olds voted for the first time in a federal election in 1972. In 1982 the charter gave the first actual entrenched guarantee of the right to vote.

The civil act of voting was once a privilege conferred on those affluent enough. Now we can appreciate that the simple act of voting, of marking an X on a ballot, repeated 13,863,135 times on one day in 1993, can overthrow a government without a single shot being fired.

In 1993 voters were finally allowed to put their own ballot in the box. Bill C-78 in 1992 first assured access for the disabled. Bill C-114 in 1993 created the special ballot, mail in registration and a voting system for those who could not access the advance poll or be present on voting day. Bill C-63 in 1996 introduced staggered and longer hours for the polls and established regular updating of a permanent register of electors which permits shorter election campaigns, down to 36 days from 47.

In the first century and a half of Canada's electoral history from 1759 to 1920 it was mainly a story of extending the vote to people previously excluded by reason of income, sex, race or religion.

 

. 1710 + -

The second half of the story, and it continues to be, was an account of how legislators, courts and election officials have worked to ensure that everyone eligible to vote can exercise this fundamental democratic right of citizenship freely, easily and confidently.

The enactment, Bill C-2, repeals and replaces the Canada Elections Act, updating its language, adding new provisions and reorganizing its content. Some new provisions of the enactment deal with election campaigns, including spending limits on third party election advertising, a blackout on election polls and election advertising on polling day and the day before polling day, a requirement that the methodology of a poll be published with the poll's result, the right of electors to post reasonable signage during a campaign, and an enforceable right of candidates to campaign in multiple residential buildings during reasonable hours.

Finance provisions provide for a registered party that fails to nominate 50 candidates to keep its net assets, subject to certain conditions. Reporting requirements for registered parties and candidates are improved. The enactment also provides for the disclosure of the names and addresses of campaign contributors of more than $200 and for the full refund of candidates of their nomination deposits when they submit their campaign returns.

The enactment extends the franchise to returning officers and gives the chief electoral officer the discretion to adjust voting hours for electoral districts that do not switch to daylight saving time during the summer months. It also provides for voting hours in a byelection. It increases the cutoff for the political tax credit to $200 from $100 for the 75% rate.

We are getting there, but it is slow. Modern day Reformers have some improvements to the bill that are most worthy of consideration. We must allow the chief electoral officer to employ returning officers on the basis of merit as determined through competitions that are publicly advertised and open to all Canadians. This modernization would make the electoral process less political, more democratic and more trustworthy.

We should require returning officers to select assistant returning officers, deputy returning officers and poll clerks on the basis of merit, as determined through competitions and open hiring practices that are publicly advertised and open to all Canadians.

Certainly we should delete the requirement for a party to run 50 candidates in order to get its party name on the ballot and rather use the number 12, the standard from the House for party status. This would allow voters to make a more informed choice and it would add clarity to the ballot.

Sadly the Liberals hold on to prescriptive notions about trying to control third party spending. We must allow all Canadians to enjoy the same right to express themselves during an election campaign as is presently enjoyed by the big media and the political party machines. It would also help to ensure that both political parties and candidates pay much more attention to a broader range of issues, thereby establishing a better level of accountability.

We are grown up enough in the country to stop the practice of the Prime Minister toying around with the electorate for the clear advantage of the ruling party by requiring in the future that byelections be held within six months of vacancies arising in the House. This would reduce the government's ability to time byelections according to political circumstances and ensure that Canadians would not be unrepresented in the House for unreasonable periods of time.

To provide order, why can we not require the chief electoral officer to release final spending limits to each candidate before the electoral writ is dropped? This would ensure that each candidate would have a fairer chance to allocate their budget. The pre-writ spending guessing game favours the ruling party and is just another fiddle of the rules.

One of the biggest ones that has broad support across the country is to have elections on fixed dates every four years. This would prevent the government from only calling elections when political circumstances were favourable and would also allow smaller parties with fewer resources to prepare themselves. It would improve the national policy development cycle and would assist the economy for better fiscal planning.

We can overcome the desire for governments to cheat with taxpayer money by prohibiting government advertising during the three months prior to an election. This would eliminate the unfair ability of the governing party to exceed its spending limits for election advertising by using taxpayer money to advertise government policies.

When one goes into a poll, with all the credit card fraud going on, we could at least require all voters to show identification when not on the list. The loophole should be closed whereby anyone without ID could vote simply by taking an oath in place of proper proof of identity or residency.

Finally, to allow election resources to concentrate on issues instead of busy work, it should be provided that the official voters list includes poll and sequence numbers in its printed form so that scrutineers can more efficiently track those who have voted and campaigns could be run more cheaply. We are pleased that chief election officers will now be allowed to experiment and study the changing technology of electronics to conduct voting.

In summary, like so many Liberal efforts there are some good measures in the bill, but does it go far enough when so easily it could have been a great bill? The problem is an ideological one of arrogance, of not trusting the average voter, and of still trying to fudge for advantage when in power. It perhaps takes the measures, the inadequacies of the bill, to demonstrate how juvenile and small minded is the Liberal administration.

 

. 1715 + -

Again we have a bill that shows that the government is not a wise manager of the public trust. We can only hope for change and that there may still be some goodwill on the government side to give democracy a break and for the government to give up a little bit of its silliness. If it does not heed the warnings, some parts of the bill will invariably be struck down by the courts as exceeding the constitutional limits. Let us have completely fair rules for this House does not belong to us, it belongs to all Canadians. Let us play fair for them.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak today to this bill on electoral reform.

I will begin with something very telling that Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on October 28, 1999:

      [—]when I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to the appointment of returning officers. I clearly indicate, as I do in Canada, that the appointment of returning officers under the present system is an anachronism.

There are many anachronisms in the present system, and perhaps the way returning officers are appointed is one. My colleagues spoke about this earlier. It has been 30 years since there has been any electoral reform. If we are going to introduce any such reform, we would do well to benefit from comments as useful as those of the Chief Electoral Officer.

My colleagues raised another very important issue: the funding of political parties. This is a debate that gets a lot of reactions here. Perhaps not as many as we would like, of course, because some members are turning a deaf ear, but I say that the way political parties are funded is very important in a democracy.

When we look at where these financing methods come from, it can be readily understood what direction the political parties will take. My colleagues have said this regularly today: “the Bloc Quebecois has taken its inspiration from the election legislation in Quebec, where it is forbidden for companies to fund political parties.” This is easy to understand.

First of all, we know that money is an essential weapon in the battle. Money is necessary if a political party wants to bring out its ideas, to promote its ideas, since election campaigns nowadays are often promoted through the media. This means money has to come from somewhere to sell ideas, new ideas as well, and that is why people have to be sought out who share the same ideas we want to promote.

But when the time comes to go after that money, there are two choices: individuals and companies. Businesses and corporations are far richer than ordinary people, and under the present legislation—and there is no readiness to change it—a company like a bank with millions of dollars in profits which has an interest in seeing some laws changed, or in anything that is related to politics, can decide to contribute to a political party. In some cases, it can also decide to contribute only to the party in power.

This is not without consequences since it might create a lot of favouritism. You will agree that if a business contributes $25,000 to a party, it will surely have more of the ear of the party than an ordinary citizen who, proportionately, made the same effort, which amounted to perhaps $50.

So there is a double standard. The idea in Quebec of accepting funding from individuals only is a good one. Naturally, some people are richer than others, but at least the difference is not too huge. Especially since the limit is $5,000.

 

. 1720 + -

Obviously and without a doubt, it is not perfect, but we are at least approaching perfection. We are aiming for perfection, a fair system. Today we are debating a reform bill, which, I must say, reforms very little.

Speaking of reform, in the previous parliament, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour had advocated a change in the federal law in Motion M-150. The Bloc tried to change this rule and to introduce its democratic values here in parliament. Naturally, as the stakes were incredibly high for the government, the proposal was rejected, and the current formula continues in force.

The Bloc Quebecois has tried, on two occasions, to change this rule. I personally continue to believe that corporate funding is a threat to democracy. Now we are wondering what the Bloc Quebecois should do in the face of this refusal by the parties to change the law. I say we are going to have to stop being hard on ourselves, because we are not playing by the same rules. In a way, the situation is unfair. I think we should do what we can to change this rule but, at some point, I am going to have to work for changes within my own party because the fight is not an equal one.

In short, time will tell. I hope that amendments can be made to this bill so that Quebec's legislation will not be the only legislation of its kind in Canada.

When we speak of reform and elections, we are of course speaking of democracy. I could say much more about democracy or the pretence thereof. What I mean is that the system is far from perfect and that many improvements could be made. I usually say that democracy is in crisis at three levels.

First, there is the level of national political power versus a world economy. I think that more and more members realize that I am trying to get this debate going. How can a national government establish effective fiscal measures in a world economy? Extensive reflection is required in this regard.

The second level is within this very institution. I am sure that a broad reform is indicated. This parliament is ill adapted to reality. It badly represent its people in many respects. It is based on mechanisms that are hundreds of years old, or at least one hundred years old. It ought to be modernized and to undergo a vast reform so that the people are better reflected in their institutions.

My colleague, the member for Longueuil, has been giving some thought to the kind of changes and reform that could be made to our parliamentary institutions to help people identify better with the way we run our democratic representation system.

When I talk about a democratic crisis at the third level, it is between the people and the state. It involves people who often lose interest in politics, and rightly so. I think that financing rules that are ill suited to the needs and the reality of people can bring the people to lose interest in politics because they do not feel they are well represented.

There is a lot of work to be done. The Bloc Quebecois is trying to bring about changes. I hope we will succeed in making these changes for the next generations. They are urgently required.

My impression is that democracy is often taken for granted. We think that, because we have a democratic system, we do not need to fight anymore. On the contrary. Because we have a democratic system, we must fight and work hard with the people to make sure that they are truly represented in our democratic system.

 

. 1725 + -

One thing is sure, an electoral reform proposal such as the one presented today will certainly not restore the people's confidence.

Therefore, I hope that the members of the Liberal Party and the other parties will think about our electoral system and, at the same time, about our whole system of democratic representation.

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my colleagues are telling me I am supposed to bring the House home tonight in this debate, so I guess that is what I will do.

Bill C-2 is a 250 page document that from my perspective poorly attempts to deal with some of the inherent problems in our current elections act. I believe that there are several parts of the bill that should draw the attention and concern of everyone in Canada.

The federal Liberals of course have a poor record of democratic accountability. This bill appears to be just one more example. Unfortunately, if this bill is not changed substantially, it could affect the next federal election, of course in the Liberals' favour.

One item of concern is the proposed spending limit by third parties. I believe that third parties are important to the ongoing democratic process here in Canada. They draw the public's attention to particular platforms of one or more political parties. They do not run candidates themselves, however they may endorse or condemn the stand of a particular candidate or political party.

Not all Canadians have the time to be as actively involved as they would like to be in the ongoing effect of new legislation. They therefore rely upon groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to take on a watchdog type of role, both in monitoring new legislation as well as suggesting revisions and changes to pending legislation.

I remind the House that in two previous court cases the elections act was overturned in Alberta regarding the amount of available third party spending. Now the government wants to try to do it all again. I have no doubt that the matter will end up challenged in court once again, costing the taxpayers untold dollars.

Based upon the previous court cases and the similar wording in the draft of Bill C-2, it is likely that this portion of the bill will be overturned again at some time pending a court challenge.

I firmly believe the Canada Elections Act needs to work for all the people on a politically neutral basis. It must not create a bias toward or away from any other group. True democracy ensures that the people are able to listen, question and ultimately make their own decisions as to who will lead the government of the day.

At this time the proposed Canada Elections Act does not have the support of the people of Canada. It does not have the support of the chief electoral office, nor does it have the support of the opposition parties in the House of Commons.

So who is in favour of this bill? Quite simply, the Liberal government of the day is in favour of it. Why would it be in favour of it when so few others are supportive? I believe that without changes the bill will favour the government of the day, thus making it extremely difficult for other political parties to gain a political foothold for future change.

Now is the time that we must collectively take the government to task on this issue. The official opposition has taken note of this issue and will continue to hold the government accountable for its undemocratic actions.

I have had the opportunity to speak about democracy in many past speeches both here in the House of Commons as well as throughout my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. Without real active grassroots democracy, the citizens of Canada only have an opportunity to express their opinion on the affairs of the country once every four or five years.

I believe that Canadians expect far more than that out of their government system. This bill does nothing to address serious public concerns involving campaign financing, the registration requirements for third parties, when byelections will occur and that most hated of all, patronage appointments within Elections Canada.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I have to interrupt the hon. member.

*  *  *

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

 

The House resumed from December 6, consideration of Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, December 6, 1999, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-9.

Call in the members.

 

. 1755 + -

And the bells having rung:

Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that you like me believe that this is a serious place, a place where tradition is important and where people should be properly dressed.

I would point out that the member for Langley—Abbotsford, a member of the Reform Party, is improperly dressed.

The Deputy Speaker: I am now able to see the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

 

. 1800 + -

I think it might be more productive if we proceeded with the voting. I know that the Chair invariably enforces dress. Although I must admit that the Deputy Speaker did have a lapse the other day, not in my own dress, you understand, I do think it is appropriate for members to remember there is a dress code in this place.

However, normally the enforcement occurs when a member wishes to address the House. Since we are not expecting speeches tonight and are voting, I am not proposing to take further steps at this time.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

 

. 1805 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 62

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Bailey Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman Casson Chatters
Cummins Duncan Elley Epp
Forseth Gilmour Goldring Gouk
Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart
Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer
Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther
Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield
McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Reynolds
Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg Stinson
Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford)
Williams – 49


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Anderson
Assad Assadourian Asselin Augustine
Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Bachand (Saint - Jean) Baker
Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellehumeur
Bellemare Bennett Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
Bernier (Tobique – Mactaquac) Bertrand Bevilacqua Bigras
Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Bonin Bonwick
Boudria Bradshaw Brien Brison
Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia
Cannis Canuel Caplan Cardin
Carroll Casey Catterall Chamberlain
Chan Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic) Clouthier
Collenette Cotler Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Debien Desjarlais
Desrochers DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola
Dockrill Doyle Dromisky Drouin
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Dubé (Madawaska – Restigouche) Duceppe Duhamel
Dumas Earle Easter Eggleton
Finlay Fontana Fournier Fry
Gagnon Gallaway Gauthier Girard - Bujold
Godfrey Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale
Graham Gray (Windsor West) Grose Gruending
Guarnieri Guay Guimond Harb
Hardy Harvey Herron Hubbard
Ianno Iftody Jackson Jones
Jordan Karetak - Lindell Keddy (South Shore) Keyes
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Kraft Sloan
Laliberte Lastewka Laurin Lebel
Lee Leung Lill Limoges
Lincoln Longfield Loubier MacAulay
MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Mahoney Malhi Maloney
Mancini Manley Marceau Martin (LaSalle – Émard)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan (Edmonton West) McTeague McWhinney Ménard
Mercier Mifflin Mitchell Muise
Murray Myers Nault Nystrom
O'Brien (Labrador) O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan
Paradis Parrish Patry Peric
Perron Peterson Phinney Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri Plamondon Power Pratt
Price Proud Proulx Provenzano
Redman Reed Riis Robinson
Rocheleau Rock Saada Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton) Sgro Shepherd Solomon
Speller St. Denis St - Hilaire St - Jacques
St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland)
Stoffer Szabo Telegdi Thibeault
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Valeri Vanclief
Vautour Venne Wayne Whelan
Wilfert Wood – 202


PAIRED

Members

Dion Gagliano Lalonde Marchand


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 requires the question to be put on on Motion No. 3.

 

. 1815 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 63

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Bailey Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman Casson Chatters
Cummins Duncan Elley Epp
Forseth Gilmour Goldring Gouk
Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart
Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer
Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther
Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield
McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Reynolds
Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg Stinson
Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford)
Williams – 49


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Anderson
Assad Assadourian Asselin Augustine
Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Bachand (Saint - Jean) Baker
Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellehumeur
Bellemare Bennett Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
Bernier (Tobique – Mactaquac) Bertrand Bevilacqua Bigras
Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Bonin Bonwick
Boudria Bradshaw Brien Brison
Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia
Cannis Canuel Caplan Cardin
Carroll Catterall Chamberlain Chan
Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic) Clouthier Collenette
Cotler Crête Cullen Dalphond - Guiral
de Savoye Debien Desjarlais Desrochers
DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola Dockrill
Doyle Dromisky Drouin Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
Dubé (Madawaska – Restigouche) Duceppe Duhamel Dumas
Earle Easter Eggleton Finlay
Fontana Fournier Fry Gagnon
Gallaway Gauthier Girard - Bujold Godfrey
Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham
Gray (Windsor West) Grose Gruending Guarnieri
Guay Guimond Harb Hardy
Harvey Herron Hubbard Ianno
Iftody Jackson Jones Jordan
Karetak - Lindell Keddy (South Shore) Keyes Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Kraft Sloan Laliberte
Lastewka Laurin Lebel Lee
Leung Lill Limoges Lincoln
Longfield Loubier MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
Mahoney Malhi Maloney Mancini
Manley Marceau Martin (LaSalle – Émard) Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East) McLellan (Edmonton West)
McTeague McWhinney Ménard Mercier
Mifflin Mitchell Muise Murray
Myers Nault Nystrom O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis
Parrish Patry Peric Perron
Peterson Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri
Plamondon Power Pratt Price
Proud Proulx Provenzano Redman
Reed Richardson Riis Robinson
Rocheleau Rock Saada Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton) Sgro Shepherd Solomon
Speller St. Denis St - Hilaire St - Jacques
St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland)
Stoffer Szabo Telegdi Thibeault
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Valeri Vanclief
Vautour Venne Wayne Whelan
Wilfert Wood – 202


PAIRED

Members

Dion Gagliano Lalonde Marchand


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 3.

 

. 1825 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 64

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Bailey Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman Casson Chatters
Cummins Duncan Elley Epp
Forseth Gilmour Goldring Gouk
Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart
Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer
Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther
Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield
McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Reynolds
Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg Stinson
Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford)
Williams – 49


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Anderson
Assad Assadourian Asselin Augustine
Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Bachand (Saint - Jean) Baker
Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellehumeur
Bellemare Bennett Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
Bernier (Tobique – Mactaquac) Bertrand Bevilacqua Bigras
Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Bonin Bonwick
Boudria Bradshaw Brien Brison
Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia
Cannis Canuel Caplan Cardin
Carroll Casey Catterall Chamberlain
Chan Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic) Clouthier
Collenette Cotler Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Debien Desjarlais
Desrochers DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola
Dockrill Doyle Dromisky Drouin
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Dubé (Madawaska – Restigouche) Duceppe Duhamel
Dumas Earle Easter Eggleton
Finlay Fontana Fournier Fry
Gagnon Gallaway Gauthier Girard - Bujold
Godfrey Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale
Graham Gray (Windsor West) Grose Gruending
Guarnieri Guay Guimond Harb
Hardy Harvey Herron Hubbard
Ianno Iftody Jackson Jones
Jordan Karetak - Lindell Keddy (South Shore) Keyes
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Kraft Sloan
Laliberte Lastewka Laurin Lebel
Lee Leung Lill Limoges
Lincoln Longfield Loubier MacAulay
MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Mahoney Malhi Maloney
Mancini Manley Marceau Martin (LaSalle – Émard)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan (Edmonton West) McTeague McWhinney Ménard
Mercier Mifflin Mitchell Muise
Murray Myers Nault Nystrom
O'Brien (Labrador) O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan
Paradis Parrish Patry Peric
Perron Peterson Phinney Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri Plamondon Power Pratt
Price Proud Proulx Provenzano
Redman Reed Richardson Riis
Robinson Rocheleau Rock Saada
Sauvageau Scott (Fredericton) Sgro Shepherd
Solomon Speller St. Denis St - Hilaire
St - Jacques St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland) Stoffer Szabo Telegdi
Thibeault Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur Valeri
Vanclief Vautour Venne Wasylycia - Leis
Wayne Whelan Wilfert Wood – 204


PAIRED

Members

Dion Gagliano Lalonde Marchand


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just cannot sit here without putting on record that the political mischief by the Reform Party could very well cost our pages their marks on their exams because they are in the exam period at this time. I find it unfair that they have to suffer along with the rest of us.

The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is not a point of order. If the whip of the official opposition is rising on a different point of order, I would want to hear him.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that the House would let the pages go home at this time.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 4. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 5 to 27.

 

. 1835 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 65

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Bailey Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman Casson Chatters
Cummins Duncan Elley Epp
Forseth Gilmour Goldring Gouk
Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart
Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer
Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther
Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield
McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Reynolds
Schmidt Solberg Stinson Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams  – 48


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Anderson
Assad Assadourian Asselin Augustine
Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Bachand (Saint - Jean) Baker
Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellehumeur
Bellemare Bennett Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
Bernier (Tobique – Mactaquac) Bertrand Bevilacqua Bigras
Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Bonin Bonwick
Bradshaw Brien Brison Bryden
Bulte Byrne Caccia Cannis
Canuel Caplan Cardin Carroll
Casey Catterall Chamberlain Chan
Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic) Clouthier Collenette
Cotler Crête Cullen Dalphond - Guiral
de Savoye Debien Desjarlais Desrochers
DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola Dockrill
Doyle Dromisky Drouin Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
Dubé (Madawaska – Restigouche) Duceppe Duhamel Dumas
Earle Easter Eggleton Finlay
Fontana Fournier Fry Gagnon
Gallaway Gauthier Girard - Bujold Godfrey
Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham
Gray (Windsor West) Grose Gruending Guarnieri
Guay Guimond Harb Hardy
Harvey Herron Hubbard Ianno
Iftody Jackson Jones Jordan
Karetak - Lindell Keddy (South Shore) Keyes Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Kraft Sloan Laliberte
Lastewka Laurin Lee Leung
Lill Limoges Lincoln Longfield
Loubier MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Mahoney
Malhi Maloney Mancini Manley
Marceau Martin (LaSalle – Émard) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews
McDonough McKay (Scarborough East) McTeague McWhinney
Ménard Mercier Mifflin Mitchell
Muise Murray Myers Nault
Nystrom O'Brien (Labrador) O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly
Pagtakhan Paradis Parrish Patry
Peric Perron Peterson Phinney
Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri Plamondon Power
Pratt Price Proud Proulx
Provenzano Redman Reed Richardson
Riis Robinson Rocheleau Rock
Saada Sauvageau Scott (Fredericton) Sgro
Shepherd Solomon St. Denis St - Hilaire
St - Jacques St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland) Stoffer Szabo Telegdi
Thibeault Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur Valeri
Vanclief Vautour Venne Wasylycia - Leis
Wayne Whelan Wilfert Wood  – 200


PAIRED

Members

Dion Gagliano Lalonde Marchand


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like it noted that it was the government side that refused to let the pages go home.

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 5. A negative vote on Motion No. 5 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 6 to 12.

 

. 1840 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 66

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Bailey Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman Casson Chatters
Cummins Duncan Elley Epp
Forseth Gilmour Goldring Gouk
Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart
Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer
Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther
Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield
McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Reynolds
Schmidt Solberg Stinson Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams  – 48


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Anderson
Assad Asselin Augustine Axworthy
Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Bachand (Saint - Jean) Baker Beaumier
Bélair Bélanger Bellehumeur Bellemare
Bennett Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bernier (Tobique – Mactaquac)
Bertrand Bevilacqua Bigras Blaikie
Blondin - Andrew Bonin Bonwick Bradshaw
Brien Brison Bryden Bulte
Byrne Caccia Cannis Canuel
Caplan Cardin Carroll Casey
Catterall Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau
Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic) Clouthier Collenette Cotler
Crête Cullen Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye
Debien Desjarlais Desrochers DeVillers
Dhaliwal Discepola Dockrill Doyle
Dromisky Drouin Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Dubé (Madawaska – Restigouche)
Duceppe Duhamel Dumas Earle
Easter Eggleton Finlay Fontana
Fournier Fry Gagnon Gallaway
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Godfrey Godin (Acadie – Bathurst)
Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham Gray (Windsor West)
Grose Gruending Guarnieri Guay
Guimond Harb Hardy Harvey
Herron Hubbard Ianno Iftody
Jackson Jones Jordan Karetak - Lindell
Keddy (South Shore) Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson
Kraft Sloan Laliberte Lastewka Laurin
Lebel Lee Leung Lill
Lincoln Longfield Loubier MacAulay
MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Mahoney Malhi Maloney
Mancini Manley Marceau Martin (LaSalle – Émard)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East)
McTeague McWhinney Ménard Mercier
Mifflin Mitchell Muise Murray
Myers Nault Nystrom O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis
Parrish Patry Peric Perron
Peterson Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri
Plamondon Power Pratt Price
Proud Proulx Provenzano Redman
Reed Richardson Riis Robinson
Rocheleau Rock Saada Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton) Sgro Shepherd Solomon
Speller St. Denis St - Hilaire St - Jacques
St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland)
Stoffer Szabo Telegdi Thibeault
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Valeri Vanclief
Vautour Venne Wasylycia - Leis Wayne
Whelan Wilfert Wood – 199


PAIRED

Members

Dion Gagliano Lalonde Marchand


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. A negative vote on Motion No. 6 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 7 to 12.

 

. 1850 + -

[Translation]

(The House divided on the Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 67

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Bailey Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman Casson Chatters
Cummins Duncan Elley Epp
Forseth Gilmour Goldring Gouk
Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart
Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer
Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther
Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield
McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Reynolds
Schmidt Solberg Stinson Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams  – 48


NAYS

Members

Adams Alcock Anderson Assad
Asselin Augustine Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska)
Bachand (Saint - Jean) Baker Beaumier Bélair
Bélanger Bellehumeur Bellemare Bergeron
Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bernier (Tobique – Mactaquac) Bertrand Bevilacqua
Bigras Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Bonin
Bradshaw Brien Brison Bryden
Caccia Cannis Canuel Caplan
Cardin Casey Catterall Chamberlain
Chan Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic) Collenette
Cotler Crête Cullen Dalphond - Guiral
de Savoye Debien Desjarlais Desrochers
DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola Dockrill
Doyle Dromisky Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Duceppe
Duhamel Dumas Earle Easter
Eggleton Finlay Fontana Fournier
Fry Gallaway Gauthier Girard - Bujold
Godfrey Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Goodale Graham
Gray (Windsor West) Grose Gruending Guarnieri
Guay Guimond Harb Harvey
Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson
Jones Keddy (South Shore) Keyes Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Kraft Sloan Laliberte
Lastewka Laurin Lebel Lee
Lill Lincoln Longfield Loubier
MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi Maloney
Mancini Manley Marceau Martin (LaSalle – Émard)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough McWhinney Ménard
Mercier Mifflin Mitchell Muise
Murray Myers Nault Nystrom
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis
Parrish Patry Peric Perron
Peterson Phinney Pillitteri Power
Proud Proulx Reed Richardson
Riis Robinson Rock Saada
Sauvageau Scott (Fredericton) Sgro Solomon
Speller St. Denis St - Hilaire St - Julien
Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Stoffer Szabo
Telegdi Thibeault Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Vanclief Vautour Wasylycia - Leis
Wood – 161


PAIRED

Members

Dion Gagliano Lalonde Marchand


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 7. A negative vote on Motion No. 7 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 8 to 12.

 

. 1900 + -

[English]

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 68

YEAS

Members

Anders Bailey Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Chatters Cummins Duncan
Elley Epp Forseth Gilmour
Goldring Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North)
Hanger Hart Hilstrom Jaffer
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally
Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai
Pankiw Penson Reynolds Schmidt
Solberg Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose)
Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams  – 43


NAYS

Members

Adams Alcock Anderson Assad
Asselin Augustine Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska)
Bachand (Saint - Jean) Beaumier Bélair Bélanger
Bellehumeur Bellemare Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
Bertrand Bigras Blaikie Blondin - Andrew
Bonin Bradshaw Brien Brison
Bryden Caccia Cannis Canuel
Caplan Cardin Casey Catterall
Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Cotler Crête Cullen Dalphond - Guiral
de Savoye Debien Desjarlais Desrochers
DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola Dockrill
Doyle Dromisky Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Duceppe
Duhamel Dumas Earle Easter
Finlay Fontana Fournier Fry
Gallaway Gauthier Girard - Bujold Godfrey
Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Goodale Graham Grose
Gruending Guarnieri Guay Guimond
Harb Hardy Harvey Hubbard
Ianno Iftody Jackson Jones
Keddy (South Shore) Keyes Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson Kraft Sloan Laliberte Lastewka
Laurin Lebel Lee Leung
Lill Lincoln Longfield Loubier
MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi Maloney
Mancini Manley Marceau Martin (LaSalle – Émard)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough McWhinney Ménard
Mercier Mifflin Mitchell Muise
Murray Nault Nystrom O'Brien (London – Fanshawe)
O'Reilly Pagtakhan Paradis Parrish
Patry Peric Perron Peterson
Phinney Power Pratt Proud
Proulx Reed Richardson Riis
Robinson Saada Sauvageau Scott (Fredericton)
Solomon Speller St. Denis St - Hilaire
St - Julien Stewart (Brant) Stewart (Northumberland) Stoffer
Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean)
Vanclief Vautour Wasylycia - Leis Wood – 152


PAIRED

Members

Dion Gagliano Lalonde Marchand


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 8. A negative vote on Motion No. 8 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 9 and 10.

 

. 1905 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 69

YEAS

Members

Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman
Chatters Cummins Duncan Elley
Epp Forseth Gilmour Goldring
Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger
Hart Hilstrom Jaffer Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Konrad Lowther Lunn Manning
Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally Meredith
Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai Pankiw
Penson Reynolds Schmidt Solberg
Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott
White (Langley – Abbotsford) – 41


NAYS

Members

Adams Anderson Assad Assadourian
Augustine Axworthy Baker Beaumier
Bélair Bertrand Blondin - Andrew Bonin
Bradshaw Bryden Caccia Cannis
Caplan Catterall Chamberlain Chan
Debien Desjarlais DeVillers Dhaliwal
Discepola Dromisky Drouin Duhamel
Dumas Earle Easter Finlay
Fontana Fry Gagnon Godin (Acadie – Bathurst)
Goodale Graham Gruending Guay
Harb Hardy Harvey Herron
Iftody Jordan Karetak - Lindell Keyes
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Limoges
MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Maloney Mancini
Manley Martin (LaSalle – Émard) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough
Mifflin Mitchell Myers Nystrom
Pagtakhan Paradis Peterson Phinney
Picard (Drummond) Pratt Proud Redman
Robinson Rocheleau Saada Scott (Fredericton)
Solomon St. Denis St - Julien Stewart (Brant)
Stoffer Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Vanclief
Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan Wood – 88


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 9. A negative vote on Motion No. 9 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 10.

 

. 1910 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 70

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hill (Macleod) Hilstrom
Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad
Lowther Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield McNally Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Reynolds
Solberg Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose)
Vellacott Williams – 42


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Anderson Assad
Assadourian Augustine Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska)
Baker Beaumier Bélair Bennett
Bertrand Blondin - Andrew Bonin Bradshaw
Bryden Caccia Cannis Caplan
Catterall Chamberlain Chan Clouthier
Desjarlais DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola
Dromisky Drouin Duhamel Dumas
Earle Fontana Fry Gagnon
Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Graham Gruending
Harb Hardy Harvey Herron
Iftody Jordan Karetak - Lindell Keyes
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Leung
Limoges MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Maloney
Mancini Manley Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews
Mifflin Mitchell Myers Nault
Nystrom Pagtakhan Paradis Peterson
Phinney Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Pratt
Price Proud Redman Robinson
Rocheleau Saada Scott (Fredericton) Solomon
St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien Stewart (Brant)
Stoffer Szabo Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur Vanclief
Venne Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan
Wood – 97


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 lost.

[Translation]

The next question is on Motion No. 10.

 

. 1915 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 71

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River)
Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad
Lowther Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield
McNally Meredith Morrison Pankiw
Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg Stinson
Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott Williams  – 40


NAYS

Members

Alarie Anderson Assad Assadourian
Augustine Axworthy Baker Bélanger
Bennett Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw
Byrne Caccia Caplan Chan
Clouthier Desjarlais Dhaliwal Discepola
Drouin Duhamel Dumas Earle
Fontana Fry Gagnon Godin (Acadie – Bathurst)
Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Gruending Harb
Hardy Harvey Herron Jordan
Karetak - Lindell Keyes Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Leung Limoges MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
Maloney Mancini Manley Matthews
Mifflin Mitchell Myers Nault
Nystrom O'Brien (Labrador) Pagtakhan Peterson
Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri Pratt
Price Proud Provenzano Redman
Robinson Rocheleau Scott (Fredericton) Solomon
St - Jacques St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant)
Stoffer Szabo Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Vanclief Venne
Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan – 83


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 11. A negative vote on Motion No. 11 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 12.

 

. 1920 + -

[Translation]

(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 72

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman
Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan
Elley Epp Forseth Gilmour
Goldring Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North)
Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River)
Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad
Lowther Lunn Manning McNally
Meredith Morrison Pankiw Schmidt
Scott (Skeena) Solberg Strahl Vellacott
White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams – 38


NAYS

Members

Alarie Anderson Assad Assadourian
Axworthy Baker Bennett Blaikie
Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw Byrne
Caccia Caplan Chan Clouthier
Desjarlais Dhaliwal Drouin Duhamel
Dumas Earle Fontana Fry
Gagnon Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale
Gruending Harb Hardy Harvey
Herron Jackson Jordan Karetak - Lindell
Keyes Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Laliberte
Leung Lill Limoges MacAulay
Malhi Maloney Mancini Manley
Matthews Mercier Mifflin Mitchell
Murray Myers Nault Nystrom
O'Brien (Labrador) Pagtakhan Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri
Pratt Price Proud Provenzano
Redman Reed Richardson Robinson
Rocheleau Scott (Fredericton) Shepherd Solomon
St - Jacques St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant)
Stoffer Szabo Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Vanclief Venne
Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan – 87


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 12.

 

. 1930 + -

(The House divided on the Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 73

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman
Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan
Elley Epp Forseth Gilmour
Goldring Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North)
Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River)
Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad
Lowther Lunn Manning McNally
Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Pankiw
Penson Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg
Stinson Strahl Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford)
Williams – 41


NAYS

Members

Alarie Anderson Assad Axworthy
Baker Bellemare Bennett Bevilacqua
Blaikie Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw
Bryden Byrne Caccia Chan
Clouthier DeVillers Dhaliwal Dockrill
Drouin Duceppe Duhamel Dumas
Earle Fontana Fry Gagnon
Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Gruending
Harb Hardy Harvey Herron
Hubbard Jackson Jones Jordan
Karetak - Lindell Keyes Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Laliberte Leung Lill Limoges
Longfield MacAulay Malhi Maloney
Mancini Manley Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews
Mercier Mifflin Mitchell Murray
Myers Nault Nystrom O'Brien (Labrador)
Pagtakhan Peric Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri
Pratt Price Proud Provenzano
Redman Reed Richardson Robinson
Rocheleau Scott (Fredericton) Shepherd Solomon
St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stoffer
Szabo Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp
Ur Valeri Venne Wayne
Whelan – 93


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost.

[English]

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would again like to ask for unanimous consent in the House to allow the pages to go.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 13. A negative vote on Motion No. 13 requires the question to be put on Motion Nos. 14 to 18.

 

. 1935 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 74

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman
Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan
Elley Epp Forseth Gilmour
Goldring Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North)
Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Jaffer
Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther
Manning Mayfield McNally Meredith
Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai Pankiw
Penson Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg
Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott
White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams  – 42


NAYS

Members

Alarie Anderson Assad Assadourian
Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Baker Bellemare
Bennett Bevilacqua Blaikie Bonwick
Boudria Bradshaw Bryden Byrne
Caccia Chan Clouthier Debien
Desjarlais DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola
Dockrill Drouin Duceppe Duhamel
Dumas Earle Fry Gagnon
Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Grose Gruending
Guarnieri Harb Hardy Harvey
Herron Hubbard Iftody Jackson
Jones Jordan Karetak - Lindell Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Laliberte Lastewka Laurin
Leung Lill Limoges Lincoln
Longfield MacAulay Malhi Mancini
Manley Matthews Mercier Mifflin
Mitchell Murray Myers Nault
Nystrom O'Brien (Labrador) O'Reilly Pagtakhan
Peric Peterson Phinney Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri Pratt Price Proud
Provenzano Redman Reed Richardson
Riis Robinson Rocheleau Scott (Fredericton)
Shepherd Speller St. Denis St - Julien
Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stoffer Szabo
Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp
Ur Valeri Venne Wayne
Whelan – 105


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 14 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 15 to 18.

 

. 1940 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 75

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) Cadman
Casson Chatters Cummins Elley
Epp Forseth Gilmour Goldring
Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hart
Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer
Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther
Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield
McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Schmidt
Scott (Skeena) Solberg Stinson Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams  – 44


NAYS

Members

Alarie Alcock Anderson Assad
Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Baker Bellemare
Bennett Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Boudria
Bradshaw Bryden Byrne Caccia
Catterall Chamberlain Chan Clouthier
Cotler Debien Desjarlais DeVillers
Dhaliwal Discepola Dockrill Drouin
Duceppe Duhamel Dumas Earle
Easter Fry Gagnon Godin (Châteauguay)
Goodale Grose Gruending Guarnieri
Guay Harb Hardy Harvey
Herron Hubbard Iftody Jackson
Jones Jordan Karetak - Lindell Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson Kraft Sloan Laliberte Lastewka
Laurin Leung Lill Limoges
Lincoln Longfield MacAulay Malhi
Maloney Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews
McDonough McLellan (Edmonton West) Mercier Mifflin
Murray Myers Nault Nystrom
O'Brien (Labrador) O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan
Peric Peterson Phinney Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri Pratt Price Proud
Proulx Provenzano Redman Reed
Richardson Riis Robinson Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton) Shepherd Speller St. Denis
St - Jacques St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant)
Stoffer Szabo Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur Valeri
Venne Wayne Whelan Wood – 116


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 lost.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe everyone in the House must be fiscally responsible. I ask the Leader of the Opposition if he understands that this will cost $2.4 million by tomorrow night.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, if this treaty goes through in its defective form it will cost the country billions of dollars.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is very much afraid we are getting into debate.

The next question is on Motion No. 15. A negative vote on Motion No. 15 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 16.

 

. 1950 + -

[Translation]

(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 76

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River)
Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Konrad Lowther Lunn Manning
Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally Meredith
Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai Pankiw
Penson Schmidt Scott (Skeena) Solberg
Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott
White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams  – 46


NAYS

Members

Alarie Alcock Anderson Assadourian
Augustine Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Baker
Beaumier Bélanger Bellemare Bennett
Bertrand Blaikie Bonwick Boudria
Bryden Byrne Caccia Catterall
Chamberlain Clouthier Cotler Debien
Desjarlais DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola
Dockrill Dromisky Drouin Duceppe
Dumas Earle Easter Finlay
Fry Gagnon Gallaway Godin (Châteauguay)
Goodale Grose Gruending Guarnieri
Guay Harb Hardy Herron
Hubbard Iftody Jackson Jones
Jordan Karetak - Lindell Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson Kraft Sloan Laliberte Lastewka
Laurin Leung Lill Limoges
Lincoln Longfield MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
Malhi Maloney Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Matthews McDonough Mercier Mifflin
Murray Myers Nault O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Peric Peterson
Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri Price
Proulx Provenzano Redman Reed
Richardson Riis Robinson Rocheleau
Saada Scott (Fredericton) Shepherd Solomon
Speller St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien
Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stoffer Szabo
Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp
Ur Valeri Vanclief Venne
Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan Wood – 120


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 lost.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 16. I would remind hon. members that cellular telephones are not permitted in the Chamber.

 

. 1955 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 77

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally
Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai
Pankiw Penson Schmidt Scott (Skeena)
Solberg Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose)
Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams  – 47


NAYS

Members

Alarie Alcock Anderson Assadourian
Augustine Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Beaumier
Bélanger Bellemare Bennett Bertrand
Blaikie Bonwick Boudria Bryden
Byrne Caccia Catterall Chamberlain
Chan Clouthier Cotler Debien
Desjarlais DeVillers Discepola Dromisky
Drouin Duceppe Dumas Earle
Easter Finlay Gagnon Gallaway
Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham Grose
Gruending Guarnieri Guay Harb
Hardy Hubbard Iftody Jackson
Jones Jordan Karetak - Lindell Knutson
Kraft Sloan Laliberte Lastewka Laurin
Leung Lill Limoges Lincoln
Longfield MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi
Maloney Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews Mercier
Mifflin Murray Myers Nystrom
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Peric Phinney
Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri Pratt Price
Proulx Provenzano Redman Reed
Richardson Riis Robinson Rocheleau
Saada Scott (Fredericton) Shepherd Solomon
Speller St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien
Steckle Stewart (Brant) Szabo Telegdi
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur
Valeri Vanclief Venne Wasylycia - Leis
Wayne Whelan Wood – 111


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 17. A negative vote on Motion No. 17 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 18.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I bring to your attention the sixth edition of Beauchesne's, page 98, citation 329 on quorum in the House. Will I be allowed to quote from Beauchesne's on this point of order?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Let me do so. It states:

    The Standing Orders of the House are virtually silent on the subject of Members' dress. Standing Order 17 requires that a Member who wishes to speak must rise uncovered. While the wearing of hats in the Chamber has a respectable historical tradition, Speakers in recent years have frowned on unorthodox headgear.

It goes on:

    Many Speakers have ruled that male Members must wear a jacket, shirt and tie, and on rare occasions, such as Burns Day—

It is not Burns Day. Citation 330 states on page 99 states:

    A jacket and tie are required to be worn by male Members.

We have at least two members in the Reform Party who are not following procedure. We object to that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It appears that we will be here for a while. I notice the member for Davenport does not have a tie on but that does not bother us. I think people can vote as they see fit. It would be different perhaps if we were giving speeches. It does seem to me that we will be here for a few more minutes yet and I think one or two people who do not have their jackets on will probably not cause a riot in the land. I think we can handle it okay.

 

. 2000 + -

The Deputy Speaker: If we are only going to be here for a few more minutes I am sure hon. members will want to put their jackets on. It is quite clear that the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest is correct. The Chair is not intending to be a stickler on the subject of dress. I would prefer of course, and I think it is appropriate, that members be properly dressed in the House. The citation the hon. member has referred to is perfectly correct. I have made it clear that no member who wishes to rise on a point of order will be recognized unless that member is properly attired. I would hope that members will behave accordingly.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest. I do not want to carry this on much longer.

Mr. Greg Thompson: No, Mr. Speaker, neither do we because, as the member for Saint John pointed out, it is costing the Canadian taxpayer between now and tomorrow morning $2.5 million. If the member rises to vote, what would be the difference between not wearing a jacket on debate versus voting? I contend that a member cannot rise in this place to vote without proper attire.

The Deputy Speaker: The point of order by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest is well taken. Members who are not properly attired will not be counted in the voting.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I of course respect the ruling of the Chair, but does that apply to votes that have already been taken or just to votes from here on in?

The Deputy Speaker: Here on in.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that only a Tory would worry about a tie when there are billions of dollars that we are all voting on here tonight.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, we all try to help one another.

The question is on Motion No. 17. A negative vote on Motion No. 17 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 18.

 

. 2010 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 78

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally
Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai
Pankiw Penson Reynolds Schmidt
Solberg Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose)
Vellacott Williams – 46


NAYS

Members

Alarie Alcock Anderson Assadourian
Augustine Axworthy Beaumier Bélanger
Bellemare Bennett Bertrand Blaikie
Blondin - Andrew Bonwick Bryden Bulte
Byrne Carroll Catterall Chamberlain
Clouthier Cotler Cullen Debien
Desjarlais DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola
Dockrill Dromisky Duceppe Dumas
Earle Easter Finlay Fontana
Gagnon Godfrey Godin (Châteauguay) Grose
Gruending Guarnieri Guay Harb
Hardy Herron Hubbard Jackson
Jones Jordan Karetak - Lindell Keyes
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Knutson Kraft Sloan Laliberte
Lastewka Laurin Leung Limoges
Lincoln Longfield MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi
Maloney Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews
McDonough McKay (Scarborough East) Mercier Mitchell
Murray Myers Nystrom O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Parrish Peric
Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri Pratt
Price Proulx Provenzano Redman
Reed Richardson Riis Robinson
Rocheleau Saada Shepherd Solomon
Speller St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien
Steckle Stoffer Szabo Telegdi
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur
Valeri Vanclief Venne Wasylycia - Leis
Wayne Whelan Wilfert Wood – 116


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 lost.

The next question is Motion No. 18.

 

. 2015 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 79

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Cadman
Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan
Epp Goldring Grewal Grey (Edmonton North)
Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River)
Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Konrad Lowther Lunn Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Obhrai
Pankiw Penson Reynolds Schmidt
Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) – 35


NAYS

Members

Alarie Alcock Anderson Augustine
Axworthy Beaumier Bélanger Bellemare
Bennett Bertrand Blaikie Blondin - Andrew
Bonwick Bryden Bulte Byrne
Caccia Carroll Catterall Chamberlain
Cotler Cullen Debien Desjarlais
DeVillers Dhaliwal Discepola Dockrill
Dromisky Drouin Duceppe Dumas
Earle Easter Finlay Fontana
Gagnon Godfrey Godin (Châteauguay) Grose
Guarnieri Guay Harb Hardy
Herron Hubbard Iftody Jackson
Jones Jordan Karetak - Lindell Keyes
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Knutson Kraft Sloan Laliberte
Laurin Limoges Lincoln Longfield
MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Mahoney Malhi Maloney
Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough
McKay (Scarborough East) Mercier Mitchell Murray
Myers Nault O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly
Parrish Peric Phinney Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri Pratt Price Proulx
Provenzano Redman Reed Richardson
Riis Robinson Saada Shepherd
Solomon Speller St. Denis St - Jacques
St - Julien Steckle Stoffer Telegdi
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp
Ur Valeri Vanclief Venne
Wayne Whelan Wilfert Wood  – 112


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 18 lost.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again I stand to ask for unanimous consent in the House to allow the pages to go home.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not doubt that everyone feels the same way about what the pressures of a student might be while he or she is a page in the House, but I understand that the House has already provided shifts for the pages so that in fact they will not be here all evening as the rest of us might be. We certainly do take the opportunity to wish them all well on their exams.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that was a point of order either.

The question is on Motion No. 19. A negative vote on Motion No. 19 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 20 to 22.

 

. 2020 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 80

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Cadman
Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan
Epp Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield Meredith Mills (Red Deer)
Obhrai Penson Reynolds Schmidt
Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Williams – 36


NAYS

Members

Alarie Alcock Anderson Assad
Assadourian Augustine Axworthy Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska)
Beaumier Bélanger Bellemare Bennett
Bertrand Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Bonwick
Bryden Bulte Byrne Caccia
Carroll Catterall Chamberlain Cotler
Cullen Debien Desjarlais DeVillers
Dhaliwal Discepola Dockrill Dromisky
Drouin Duceppe Duhamel Dumas
Earle Easter Eggleton Finlay
Fontana Gagnon Godfrey Godin (Châteauguay)
Grose Guarnieri Guay Harb
Hardy Harvey Herron Hubbard
Ianno Iftody Jackson Jones
Jordan Karetak - Lindell Keyes Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Kraft Sloan Laliberte Lastewka
Laurin Lee Limoges Lincoln
Longfield MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Mahoney Malhi
Maloney Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough
McKay (Scarborough East) Mercier Mitchell Murray
Myers Nault O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly
Parrish Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri
Pratt Price Proud Proulx
Provenzano Redman Reed Richardson
Riis Robinson Rocheleau Saada
Sgro Shepherd Solomon Speller
St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien Steckle
Stoffer Szabo Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur Valeri
Vanclief Venne Wayne Whelan
Wilfert Wood  – 122


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 19 lost.

[Translation]

The next question is on Motion No. 20. A negative vote on Motion No. 20 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 21 and 22.

 

. 2030 + -

[English]

(The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 81

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Cadman
Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan
Epp Gilmour Goldring Gouk
Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart
Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield Meredith Mills (Red Deer)
Penson Reynolds Schmidt Strahl
Williams – 33


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Anderson
Assad Assadourian Augustine Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska)
Beaumier Bélanger Bellemare Bennett
Bertrand Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Bryden
Bulte Byrne Caplan Carroll
Catterall Chamberlain Collenette Cotler
Cullen Debien Desjarlais DeVillers
Discepola Dockrill Drouin Duceppe
Duhamel Dumas Earle Easter
Eggleton Finlay Fontana Gagnon
Godfrey Godin (Châteauguay) Grose Guarnieri
Guay Harb Hardy Herron
Hubbard Ianno Iftody Jackson
Jones Jordan Karetak - Lindell Keyes
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Laliberte Lastewka
Laurin Lee Leung Lill
Limoges Lincoln Longfield MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
Malhi Maloney Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
McDonough McKay (Scarborough East) Mercier Mitchell
Murray Myers Nault O'Brien (London – Fanshawe)
O'Reilly Parrish Peric Phinney
Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri Pratt Price
Proud Proulx Provenzano Redman
Reed Richardson Riis Robinson
Rocheleau Saada Scott (Fredericton) Sgro
Shepherd Solomon St. Denis St - Jacques
St - Julien Steckle Stoffer Szabo
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp
Ur Valeri Vanclief Venne
Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan Wilfert
Wood – 121


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 20 lost.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 21. A negative vote on Motion No. 21 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 22.

 

. 2035 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 82

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Konrad Lowther Lunn Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer)
Pankiw Penson Reynolds Schmidt
Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) – 39


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Anderson Assad
Assadourian Augustine Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Beaumier
Bélanger Bellemare Bennett Blaikie
Blondin - Andrew Bonwick Boudria Bryden
Bulte Byrne Caccia Caplan
Carroll Catterall Chamberlain Collenette
Cullen Debien Desjarlais DeVillers
Discepola Dockrill Drouin Duceppe
Duhamel Dumas Earle Easter
Eggleton Finlay Fontana Gagnon
Gallaway Godfrey Godin (Châteauguay) Grose
Guarnieri Guay Harb Hardy
Harvey Herron Hubbard Ianno
Iftody Jackson Jones Jordan
Karetak - Lindell Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Laliberte
Lastewka Laurin Lee Leung
Lill Limoges Lincoln Longfield
MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi Maloney Mancini
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough McKay (Scarborough East) Mercier
Mitchell Murray Myers Nault
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan Patry
Peric Peterson Phinney Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon Pratt Price Proud
Proulx Provenzano Redman Reed
Richardson Riis Robinson Rocheleau
Saada Scott (Fredericton) Sgro Shepherd
Solomon St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien
Steckle Stoffer Szabo Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur
Valeri Vanclief Venne Wasylycia - Leis
Wayne Whelan Wilfert Wood – 124


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 21 lost.

I wish to inform the House that because of the interruption there will be no Private Members' Business today. Accordingly the order will be rescheduled to another sitting.

The next question is on Motion No. 22.

 

. 2040 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 83

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River)
Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Manning Mayfield McNally Meredith
Mills (Red Deer) Obhrai Pankiw Penson
Reynolds Schmidt Stinson Thompson (Wild Rose)
White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams – 38


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Assad
Assadourian Augustine Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Baker
Beaumier Bélanger Bellemare Bennett
Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Bonwick Boudria
Bryden Bulte Caccia Caplan
Carroll Chamberlain Collenette Cullen
Debien Desjarlais DeVillers Discepola
Dockrill Drouin Duceppe Duhamel
Dumas Earle Easter Eggleton
Finlay Gagnon Gallaway Godfrey
Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Grose Gruending
Guarnieri Guay Harb Hardy
Harvey Herron Hubbard Ianno
Iftody Jackson Jones Jordan
Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Lastewka Laurin
Lee Leung Lill Limoges
Lincoln Longfield MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi
Maloney Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough
McKay (Scarborough East) McWhinney Mercier Mitchell
Murray Myers Nault Nystrom
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan Patry
Peric Peterson Phinney Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon Pratt Price Proud
Proulx Provenzano Redman Richardson
Riis Robinson Rocheleau Saada
Scott (Fredericton) Sgro Shepherd Solomon
St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien Steckle
Stoffer Szabo Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur
Valeri Vanclief Wasylycia - Leis Wayne
Whelan Wilfert Wood – 123


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 22 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 23. A negative vote on Motion No. 23 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 24.

 

. 2050 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 84

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan
Elley Epp Forseth Gilmour
Goldring Gouk Grewal Hanger
Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom
Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Lunn
Manning Mayfield McNally Meredith
Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai Pankiw
Penson Reynolds Schmidt Stinson
Thompson (Wild Rose) White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams – 39


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Assad
Assadourian Augustine Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Baker
Beaumier Bélanger Bellemare Bennett
Bertrand Blaikie Blondin - Andrew Bonwick
Boudria Bradshaw Bryden Bulte
Caccia Caplan Carroll Chamberlain
Chan Collenette Cullen Debien
Desjarlais DeVillers Discepola Dockrill
Dromisky Drouin Duceppe Duhamel
Dumas Earle Easter Eggleton
Finlay Fry Gallaway Godfrey
Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Grose Gruending
Guarnieri Guay Harb Hardy
Harvey Herron Hubbard Ianno
Iftody Jackson Jones Jordan
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Laurin
Lee Leung Lill Limoges
Longfield MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi Maloney
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough McKay (Scarborough East) McWhinney
Mercier Mitchell Murray Myers
Nault Nystrom O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly
Pagtakhan Parrish Patry Peric
Peterson Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri
Plamondon Pratt Price Proud
Proulx Provenzano Redman Reed
Richardson Riis Robinson Rocheleau
Saada Scott (Fredericton) Sgro Shepherd
Solomon Speller St. Denis St - Jacques
St - Julien Steckle Stoffer Szabo
Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Valeri Venne
Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan Wilfert
Wood – 129


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 23 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 24.

 

. 2055 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 85

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan
Elley Epp Forseth Gilmour
Goldring Gouk Grewal Hanger
Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom
Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad
Lunn Manning Mayfield McNally
Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai
Pankiw Penson Reynolds Schmidt
Stinson Thompson (Wild Rose) White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams – 40


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Assadourian
Augustine Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Baker Beaumier
Bellemare Bennett Bertrand Blaikie
Blondin - Andrew Bonwick Boudria Bradshaw
Bryden Byrne Caccia Caplan
Chamberlain Chan Collenette Cotler
Cullen Debien Desjarlais DeVillers
Discepola Dockrill Dromisky Drouin
Duceppe Duhamel Dumas Earle
Easter Eggleton Finlay Fry
Gallaway Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Grose
Gruending Guarnieri Guay Harb
Hardy Harvey Herron Hubbard
Iftody Jackson Jones Jordan
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Kraft Sloan
Laurin Lee Lill Limoges
Longfield MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi Maloney
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) McDonough McKay (Scarborough East) McWhinney
Mercier Mifflin Mitchell Murray
Nault Nystrom O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly
Pagtakhan Patry Peric Peterson
Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri Plamondon
Pratt Price Proud Proulx
Provenzano Redman Reed Richardson
Riis Robinson Rocheleau Scott (Fredericton)
Sgro Shepherd Solomon St. Denis
St - Jacques St - Julien Steckle Stoffer
Szabo Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Venne Wasylycia - Leis
Wayne Whelan Wilfert Wood  – 120


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 24 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 25. A negative vote on Motion No. 25 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 26.

 

. 2100 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 86

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lunn Manning
Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally Meredith
Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai Pankiw
Penson Reynolds Schmidt Scott (Skeena)
Solberg Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose)
Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams – 47


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Augustine Bélair
Bellemare Bennett Bevilacqua Blaikie
Blondin - Andrew Bonwick Bradshaw Bryden
Bulte Caccia Caplan Carroll
Chamberlain Chan Collenette Cotler
Cullen Debien Desjarlais DeVillers
Discepola Dockrill Dromisky Drouin
Duhamel Dumas Earle Easter
Eggleton Finlay Fry Gagnon
Gallaway Godin (Châteauguay) Grose Gruending
Guarnieri Harb Hardy Harvey
Herron Hubbard Iftody Jackson
Jones Jordan Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson Laurin Lee Leung
Lill Limoges Lincoln Longfield
MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi Maloney
Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough
McKay (Scarborough East) McWhinney Mercier Mifflin
Murray Myers Nault Nystrom
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan Patry
Peterson Phinney Pillitteri Pratt
Proud Proulx Redman Reed
Richardson Riis Rocheleau Scott (Fredericton)
Sgro Shepherd Solomon St - Julien
Stoffer Szabo Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Ur Valeri Wasylycia - Leis Wayne
Wilfert Wood – 106


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 25 lost.

 

. 2105 + -

The next question is on Motion No. 26.

 

. 2110 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 26, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 87

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally
Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai
Pankiw Reynolds Schmidt Solberg
Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott
Williams – 45


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Assadourian Augustine
Beaumier Bélair Bellemare Bennett
Bertrand Bevilacqua Blaikie Blondin - Andrew
Bonwick Bradshaw Bryden Bulte
Caccia Caplan Carroll Catterall
Chamberlain Chan Clouthier Collenette
Cotler Cullen Debien Desjarlais
DeVillers Discepola Dockrill Drouin
Duceppe Duhamel Dumas Earle
Easter Eggleton Finlay Fontana
Fry Gagnon Gallaway Godin (Acadie – Bathurst)
Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham Grose
Gruending Guarnieri Harb Hardy
Harvey Herron Hubbard Iftody
Jackson Jones Jordan Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Laurin Lee
Leung Lill Limoges Lincoln
Longfield MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi
Maloney Mancini Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews
McDonough McKay (Scarborough East) McWhinney Mercier
Mifflin Murray Myers Nault
Nystrom O'Brien (Labrador) O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly
Pagtakhan Parrish Peterson Phinney
Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri Pratt Price
Proud Proulx Redman Reed
Richardson Riis Rocheleau Scott (Fredericton)
Sgro Shepherd Solomon St - Jacques
St - Julien Steckle Stoffer Szabo
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur
Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan Wilfert
Wood  – 121


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 26 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 27.

 

. 2115 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 88

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally
Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai
Pankiw Reynolds Schmidt Solberg
Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott
Williams – 45


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Assadourian Augustine
Baker Beaumier Bélair Bellemare
Bennett Bertrand Bevilacqua Blaikie
Blondin - Andrew Bonin Bonwick Bradshaw
Bulte Caccia Cannis Caplan
Carroll Catterall Chamberlain Chan
Charbonneau Collenette Cotler Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral Debien Desjarlais DeVillers
Discepola Dromisky Drouin Duceppe
Duhamel Dumas Earle Eggleton
Finlay Fontana Fry Gagnon
Gallaway Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale
Graham Grose Harb Hardy
Harvey Herron Hubbard Iftody
Jackson Jones Jordan Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Lastewka Laurin
Lee Leung Lill Limoges
Lincoln Longfield MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
Malhi Maloney Mancini Manley
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East)
McWhinney Mercier Mifflin Mitchell
Murray Myers Nault Nystrom
O'Brien (Labrador) O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan
Parrish Peric Phinney Pillitteri
Pratt Price Proud Proulx
Redman Reed Richardson Riis
Robinson Rocheleau Scott (Fredericton) Sgro
Shepherd Solomon St. Denis St - Jacques
St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stoffer
Szabo Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Wasylycia - Leis Wayne
Whelan Wilfert Wood  – 127


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 27 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 28. A negative vote on Motion No. 28 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 29 and 30.

 

. 2125 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 28, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 89

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield Meredith
Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Pankiw Penson
Reynolds Schmidt Solberg Stinson
Strahl Vellacott Williams – 43


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Assadourian Augustine
Beaumier Bélair Bélanger Bellemare
Bennett Bertrand Bevilacqua Blaikie
Bonin Bonwick Bradshaw Bulte
Caccia Cannis Caplan Carroll
Catterall Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau
Clouthier Collenette Cotler Debien
Desjarlais DeVillers Discepola Dockrill
Dromisky Duceppe Duhamel Dumas
Earle Easter Eggleton Finlay
Fontana Fry Gagnon Godin (Acadie – Bathurst)
Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham Grose
Guarnieri Guay Harb Hardy
Harvey Hubbard Iftody Jackson
Jones Jordan Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson Kraft Sloan Lastewka Laurin
Lee Leung Lill Limoges
Lincoln Longfield MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
Malhi Maloney Mancini Manley
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East)
McWhinney Mercier Mifflin Mitchell
Murray Myers Nault Nystrom
O'Brien (London – Fanshawe) O'Reilly Pagtakhan Patry
Peric Phinney Picard (Drummond) Pillitteri
Pratt Price Proud Proulx
Redman Reed Richardson Riis
Robinson Rocheleau Saada Shepherd
Solomon St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien
Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stoffer Szabo
Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp
Ur Valeri Wasylycia - Leis Wayne
Whelan Wilfert Wood  – 127


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 28 lost.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again I want to appeal to the opposition, seeing as we do not have enough money to compensate our merchant mariners and we are wasting $2.5 million. Would they please act in a responsible way and bring this to a close.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We too are concerned about the cost and we are concerned about the cost of this treaty, which will be over a billion dollars over the life of the treaty. We think it should have been debated and we would have been happy to vote on it tonight.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All right that is it. Both sides got their oars in the water. We have some votes to take.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the House to acknowledge the fact that the presence of the Joe Clark remnants in this place is costing about—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 29. A negative vote on Motion No. 29 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 30.

 

. 2130 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 90

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Elley Epp Forseth
Gilmour Goldring Gouk Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger Hart Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally
Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Pankiw
Penson Reynolds Schmidt Solberg
Stinson Strahl Vellacott Williams – 44


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Assadourian Augustine
Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Beaumier Bélair Bélanger
Bellemare Bennett Bertrand Bevilacqua
Blaikie Bonin Bonwick Bradshaw
Bulte Caccia Cannis Caplan
Carroll Catterall Chan Charbonneau
Clouthier Collenette Debien Desjarlais
DeVillers Discepola Dockrill Dromisky
Duceppe Duhamel Dumas Earle
Eggleton Finlay Fontana Fry
Gagnon Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Graham
Grose Guarnieri Guay Harb
Hardy Harvey Herron Hubbard
Iftody Jackson Jones Jordan
Keyes Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Lastewka
Laurin Lee Leung Lill
Limoges Longfield MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
Malhi Maloney Mancini Manley
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East)
Mercier Mifflin Mitchell Murray
Myers Nault Nystrom Pagtakhan
Paradis Parrish Patry Phinney
Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Pratt Price
Proulx Redman Riis Robinson
Rocheleau Saada Sgro Shepherd
Solomon St - Jacques St - Julien Steckle
Stewart (Brant) Stoffer Szabo Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur
Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan Wilfert
Wood – 117


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 29 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 30.

 

. 2140 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 91

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Epp Gilmour Goldring
Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger
Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Jaffer
Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther
Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield
McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Reynolds
Schmidt Solberg Stinson Strahl
Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams – 43


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Anderson Augustine
Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Beaumier Bélair Bellemare
Bennett Bertrand Bevilacqua Blaikie
Bonin Bonwick Bradshaw Bulte
Caccia Caplan Carroll Catterall
Chamberlain Chan Charbonneau Clouthier
Collenette Copps Cullen Debien
Desjarlais DeVillers Discepola Dockrill
Duceppe Dumas Earle Easter
Eggleton Finlay Fontana Fry
Gagnon Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale
Graham Guay Harb Hardy
Harvey Herron Hubbard Iftody
Jackson Jones Jordan Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Laurin Lee
Leung Lill Limoges Lincoln
Longfield MacAulay MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi
Maloney Mancini Manley Martin (LaSalle – Émard)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East)
McWhinney Mercier Mitchell Murray
Myers Nystrom Pagtakhan Parrish
Patry Peric Phinney Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon Pratt Price Provenzano
Redman Reed Riis Robinson
Rocheleau Saada Scott (Fredericton) Shepherd
Solomon St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien
Steckle Stoffer Szabo Telegdi
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp
Ur Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan
Wilfert Wood – 118


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 30 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 31. A negative vote on Motion No. 31 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 32 to 40.

 

. 2145 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 92

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Casson Chatters Cummins
Duncan Epp Gilmour Goldring
Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger
Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom
Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad
Lowther Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison Obhrai Pankiw Penson
Reynolds Schmidt Solberg Stinson
Strahl Vellacott White (Langley – Abbotsford) Williams – 44


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Anderson
Assadourian Augustine Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Baker
Beaumier Bélair Bellemare Bennett
Blaikie Bonin Bradshaw Bryden
Bulte Caccia Caplan Carroll
Catterall Chamberlain Charbonneau Clouthier
Copps Cullen Desjarlais DeVillers
Discepola Dockrill Duceppe Dumas
Earle Easter Eggleton Finlay
Fontana Gagnon Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay)
Goodale Graham Guarnieri Guay
Harb Hardy Harvey Herron
Hubbard Jackson Jones Jordan
Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Laurin
Lee Leung Lill Limoges
Lincoln Longfield MacAulay Malhi
Maloney Mancini Manley Martin (LaSalle – Émard)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East)
Mercier Murray Myers Nault
Nystrom Pagtakhan Parrish Peric
Phinney Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Pratt
Price Proud Provenzano Redman
Reed Richardson Riis Robinson
Rocheleau Saada Scott (Fredericton) Sgro
Shepherd Solomon St. Denis St - Jacques
St - Julien Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stoffer
Szabo Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis) Turp Ur Valeri
Wasylycia - Leis Wayne Whelan Wilfert – 116


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 31 lost.

[Translation]

The next question is on Motion No. 32. A negative vote on Motion No. 32 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 33 to 38.

 

. 2150 + -

[English]

During the taking of the vote:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. Let us give the vote caller a break. We have been giving each other a bit of latitude, but when we are calling the vote on one side, it would be courteous not to be walking in and out, and not to be standing between the vote caller and the rows.

 

. 2155 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 93

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Cadman
Casson Chatters Cummins Duncan
Elley Epp Gilmour Goldring
Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hanger
Hart Hill (Macleod) Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom
Jaffer Johnston Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad
Lowther Lunn Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
McNally Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison
Obhrai Pankiw Penson Reynolds
Schmidt Solberg Stinson Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott Williams – 43


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Anderson
Assadourian Augustine Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Beaumier
Bellemare Bennett Bevilacqua Blaikie
Bonwick Bryden Bulte Caplan
Carroll Catterall Chamberlain Chan
Charbonneau Clouthier Collenette Copps
Cullen Desjarlais DeVillers Discepola
Dockrill Doyle Dromisky Duceppe
Dumas Earle Easter Eggleton
Finlay Fry Gagnon Gallaway
Godin (Acadie – Bathurst) Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham
Grose Guarnieri Guay Harb
Hardy Harvey Hubbard Iftody
Jackson Jones Jordan Keyes
Kilger (Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh) Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Knutson Kraft Sloan
Lee Leung Lill Limoges
Lincoln Longfield MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi
Maloney Mancini Manley Martin (LaSalle – Émard)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews McDonough McKay (Scarborough East)
Mercier Mitchell Murray Myers
Nault Nystrom Pagtakhan Parrish
Patry Peric Phinney Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri Plamondon Pratt Price
Proud Provenzano Redman Reed
Richardson Riis Robinson Rocheleau
Saada Scott (Fredericton) Sgro Shepherd
Solomon St. Denis St - Jacques St - Julien
Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stoffer Szabo
Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Wayne Whelan
Wilfert Wood – 122


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 32 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 33. A negative vote on Motion No. 33 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 34 to 36.

 

. 2200 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 33, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 94

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Chatters Cummins Duncan
Elley Epp Gilmour Goldring
Gouk Grewal Grey (Edmonton North) Hart
Hill (Prince George – Peace River) Hilstrom Jaffer Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Konrad Lowther Lunn
Manning Martin (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca) Mayfield McNally
Meredith Mills (Red Deer) Morrison Obhrai
Pankiw Reynolds Schmidt Solberg
Stinson Strahl Thompson (Wild Rose) Vellacott
Williams – 41


NAYS

Members

Adams Alarie Alcock Anderson
Assadourian Augustine Bachand (Richmond – Arthabaska) Baker
Beaumier Bellemare Bennett Bertrand
Bevilacqua Blaikie Bonwick Bryden
Caplan Carroll Catterall Chamberlain
Charbonneau Clouthier Collenette Copps
Cullen Desjarlais Discepola Dockrill
Doyle Dromisky Duceppe Dumas
Earle Easter Eggleton Finlay
Fry Gagnon Gallaway Godin (Acadie – Bathurst)
Godin (Châteauguay) Goodale Graham Grose
Guarnieri Guay Harb Hardy
Harvey Herron Hubbard Iftody
Jackson Jones Keyes Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kraft Sloan Lastewka Laurin Lee
Leung Lill Lincoln Longfield
MacKay (Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough) Malhi Maloney Mancini
Manley Martin (LaSalle – Émard) Martin (Winnipeg Centre) Matthews
McDonough McKay (Scarborough East) McLellan (Edmonton West) Mercier
Mifflin Mitchell Myers Nault
Nystrom Pagtakhan Parrish Phinney
Picard (Drummond) Plamondon Pratt Price
Proulx Redman Reed Richardson
Riis Robinson Saada Scott (Fredericton)
Shepherd Solomon St. Denis St - Julien
Steckle Stewart (Brant) Stoffer Szabo
Telegdi Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Torsney Tremblay (Rimouski – Mitis)
Turp Ur Venne Wasylycia - Leis
Wayne Whelan Wood – 115


PAIRED

Members

Asselin Bachand (Saint - Jean) Bakopanos Barnes
Bellehumeur Bergeron Bernier (Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok) Bigras
Brien Brown Bulte Calder
Canuel Cardin Cauchon Chrétien (Frontenac – Mégantic)
Coderre Collenette Crête Cullen
Dalphond - Guiral de Savoye Desrochers Dion
Dubé (Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière) Folco Fournier Gagliano
Gauthier Girard - Bujold Guimond Harvard
Lalonde Lavigne Lebel Lee
Loubier Marceau Marchand Marleau
McCormick McGuire McTeague Ménard
Minna Normand Perron Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham – Kent Essex) Robillard Rock Sauvageau
Sekora Serré St - Hilaire Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Lac - Saint - Jean) Wilfert


 

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 33 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 34. A negative vote on Motion No. 34 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 35.

 

. 2205 + -

(The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 95

YEAS

Members

Abbott Anders Benoit Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Cadman Chatters Cummins Duncan
Elley Epp Gilmour Gouk