36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 63
CONTENTS
Monday, March 13, 2000
 | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| WESTRAY MINE
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1110
1115
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1120
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1125
1130
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1135
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1140
| Motion
|
1145
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1150
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Amendments to Bill C-20
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1155
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1200
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1205
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20—Time allocation motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1210
1300
(Division 760)
| Motion agreed to
|
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Motions in amendmentto Bill C-20—Speaker's ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1305
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Amendments to bill C-20—Speaker's ruling
|
1310
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20. Report stage
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1315
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1320
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1325
1330
| Mr. André Bachand |
1335
1340
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1345
1350
| Amendement
|
1355
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| COMMONWEALTH DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| RELIGION
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| DAN DOYLE
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| SENIORS
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| MINING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1405
| TARA SLOAN
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| FIGHT AGAINST RACISM
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| FARM SAFETY
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| CURLING
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| CHIEF JOE MATHIAS
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
1410
| OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| THE LATE MARCEL PÉPIN
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| JOB CREATION IN CANADA
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| REFUGEES
|
| Mr. David Price |
| JUNO AWARDS
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1425
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1430
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1445
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1450
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PUBLIC WORKS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1455
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1500
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Legislative Services
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1505
| The Speaker |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1510
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Speaker of the House of Commons
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1515
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. George Proud |
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-450. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| PETITIONS
|
| Yugoslavia
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Highways
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Pornography
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Action Canada for Population and Development
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1520
| Refugees
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Pensions
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Bill C-20
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Immigration Taxes
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Fuel Prices
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Immigration Taxes
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1525
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20. Report stage
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1530
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1550
| Amendment
|
1555
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1600
1605
| Mr. John Bryden |
1610
1615
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1620
1625
| Mr. John McKay |
1630
1635
| Mr. René Canuel |
1640
1645
| Mr. John Finlay |
1650
1655
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1700
1705
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1710
1715
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1720
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1725
1730
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1735
1740
1745
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20. Report stage
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1750
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1755
1800
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1805
1810
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1815
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Division on the amendment deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 3 deferred
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 13
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 14
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 15
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 18
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 19
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 21
|
1820
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 22
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 23
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motions Nos. 24 and 26
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 27
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 28
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 29
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 30
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 32
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motions Nos. 33 and 34
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 35
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 36
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 37
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 38
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 39
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 40
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 41
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 42
|
1825
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motions Nos. 43 and 44
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 48
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 49
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 50
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 51
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 52
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 53
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 54
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 55
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 56
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 57
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 58
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 59
|
1830
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 60
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 61
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 62
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 63
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 64
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 65
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Motions Nos. 66 and 67
|
| Motion No. 68
|
| Division on Motion 13 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 18 deferred
|
1835
| Division on Motion No. 48 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 50 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 61 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 62 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 65 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 68 deferred
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 69
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 70
|
1840
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 71
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 72
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 73
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Motion No. 74
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 75
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Motion No. 76
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 77
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 78
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Motions Nos. 79 and 80
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 81
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motions Nos. 82 and 83
|
1845
| Division on Motion No. 69 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 72 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 78 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 81 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 82 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 83 deferred
|
1850
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Motion No. 85
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 86
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Motion No. 87
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motions Nos. 88 and 89
|
| Division on Motion No. 85 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 86 deferred
|
1855
| Division on Motion No. 88 deferred
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Motion No. 90
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 91
|
1900
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 92
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 93
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 94
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 95
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Motion No. 96
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 97
|
1905
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 98
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 99
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 100
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 101
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 102
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 103
|
1910
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 104
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 105
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 106
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 107
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motion No. 108
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 109
|
1915
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 110
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 111
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 112
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Motion No. 113
|
1920
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 114
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 115
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 116
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 117
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 118
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 119
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 120
|
1925
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 121
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 122
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 123
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 124
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 125
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 126
|
1930
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 127
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 128
|
| Motion No. 129
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 130
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 131
|
1935
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 132
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 133
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 134
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 135
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 136
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 137
|
1940
| Motion No. 138
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 139
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 140
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 141
|
1945
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 142
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 143
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motion No. 144
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 145
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 146
|
1950
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 147
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 148
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 149
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 150
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 151
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 152
|
1955
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 153
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 154
|
| Motion No. 155
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Motion No. 156
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 157
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 158
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 159
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 160
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 161
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 162
|
2000
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 163
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 164
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 165
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 166
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 167
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 168
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 169
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motion No. 170
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 171
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 172
|
2005
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 173
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 174
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 175
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 176
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 177
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 178
|
2010
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 179
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 180
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motions Nos. 181 and 182
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 183
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motions Nos. 184 and 185
|
2015
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 186
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 187
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 188
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 189
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 190
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 191
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 192
|
2020
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 193
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 194
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 195
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 196
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 197
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 198
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 199
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 200
|
2025
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 201
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 202
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 203
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 204
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 205
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 206
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 207
|
2030
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 208
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 209
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 210
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 211
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 212
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 213
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 214
|
2035
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 215
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 216
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motion No. 217
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 218
|
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Motion No. 219
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 220
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Motion No. 221
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 222
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 223
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 224
|
2040
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 225
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 226
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 227
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 228
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 229
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 230
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 231
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 232
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 233
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 234
|
2045
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 235
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 236
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 237
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 238
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 239
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 240
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 241
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 242
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 243
|
2050
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 244
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 245
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 246
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 247
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Motion No. 248
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 249
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 250
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 252
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 253
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 254
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motion No. 255
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 256
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 257
|
2055
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 258
|
| Motion No. 259
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 260
|
| Motion No. 261
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 262
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 263
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 264
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 265
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 266
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 267
|
2100
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 268
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 269
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 270
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motion No. 271
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 272
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 273
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 274
|
2105
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 275
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 276
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 277
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 278
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 280
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 281
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 282
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 283
|
2110
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 284
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Motion No. 285
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 286
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 287
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 288
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 289
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Motion No. 290
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 291
|
2115
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 292
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 293
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 294
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 295
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 296
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 297
|
2120
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 298
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 299
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 300
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 301
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 302
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Motion No. 303
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 304
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 305
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 306
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 307
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 308
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 309
|
2125
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 310
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 311
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 312
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 313
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 314
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 315
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 316
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 317
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 318
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 319
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 320
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 321
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 322
|
2130
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 323
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 324
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 325
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 326
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 327
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 328
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 329
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 330
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 331
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Motion No. 332
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 333
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 334
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 335
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 336
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 337
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 338
|
2135
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 339
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 340
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 341
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 342
|
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Motion No. 343
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 344
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 345
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 346
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 347
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 348
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 349
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 350
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 351
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 352
|
2140
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion No. 353
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 354
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Motion No. 355
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 356
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 357
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Motion No. 358
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 359
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 360
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 361
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion No. 362
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 363
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 364
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Motion No. 365
|
2145
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 366
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 367
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Motion No. 368
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Motion No. 369
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motion No. 370
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 371
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 372
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Motion No. 373
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 374
|
| Motion No. 375
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motion No. 376
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 377
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 378
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 379
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 380
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motion No. 381
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 382
|
2150
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 383
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motions Nos. 384 and 385
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 386
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 387
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Motion No. 388
|
| Motion No. 389
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 390
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Motion No. 391
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 392
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 393
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Motion No. 394
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Motion No. 395
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 396
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 397
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motion No. 398
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Motion No. 399
|
2155
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 400
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Motion No. 401
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 402
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 403
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Motion No. 404
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Motion No. 405
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 406
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Motion No. 407
|
2200
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Motions Nos. 408 and 409
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motion No. 410
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion No. 411
|
| Division on Motion No. 90 deferred
|
2205
| Division on Motion No. 91 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 150 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 398 deferred
|
2235
(Division 761)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
2240
2245
(Division 762)
| Amendment negatived
|
2255
(Division 763)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
2300
(Division 764)
| Motion No. 3 negatived
|
2310
(Division 765)
| Motion No. 4 negatived
|
2320
(Division 766)
| Amendment negatived
|
2325
(Division 767)
| Motion No. 5 negatived
|
2330
(Division 768)
| Motion No. 6 negatived
|
2335
(Division 769)
| Motion No. 7 negatived
|
2345
(Division 770)
| Motion No. 8 negatived
|
2350
(Division 771)
| Amendment negatived
|
2355
(Division 772)
| Motion No. 9 negatived
|
2400
2405
(Division 773)
| Motion No. 10 defeated
|
2410
(Division 774)
| Motion No. 11 negatived
|
2415
(Division 775)
| Motion No. 12 negatived
|
2420
(Division 776)
| Motion No. 13 negatived
|
2425
(Division 777)
| Motion No. 14 negatived
|
2430
(Division 778)
| Motion No. 15 negatived
|
2435
(Division 779)
| Motion No. 18 negatived
|
2440
(Division 780)
| Motion No. 19 negatived
|
2445
(Division 781)
| Motion No. 21 negatived
|
2450
(Division 782)
| Motion No. 22 negatived
|
2455
(Division 783)
| Motion No. 23 negatived
|
2500
(Division 784)
| Motion No. 24 negatived
|
(Division 785)
| Motion No. 26 negatived
|
2505
(Division 786)
| Motion No. 27 negatived
|
2510
(Division 787)
| Motion No. 28 negatived
|
2515
(Division 788)
| Motion No. 29 negatived
|
2520
(Division 789)
| Motion No. 30 negatived
|
2525
(Division 790)
| Motion No. 32 negatived
|
2530
(Division 791)
| Motion No. 33 negatived
|
2535
(Division 792)
| Motion No. 34 negatived
|
2540
2545
(Division 793)
| Motion No. 35 negatived
|
2550
(Division 794)
| Motion No. 36 negatived
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
2555
2600
(Division 795)
| Motion No. 37 negatived
|
2605
(Division 796)
| Motion No. 38 negatived
|
2610
(Division 797)
| Motion No. 39 negatived
|
2615
(Division 798)
| Motion No. 40 negatived
|
2620
(Division 799)
| Motion No. 41 negatived
|
2625
(Division 800)
| Motion No. 42 negatived
|
2630
2635
(Division 801)
| Motion No. 43 negatived
|
2640
2645
(Division 802)
| Motion No. 44 negatived
|
2650
(Division 803)
| Motion No. 48 negatived
|
2655
(Division 804)
| Motion No. 50 negatived
|
2700
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
(Division 805)
| Motion No. 51 negatived
|
2705
(Division 806)
| Motion No. 52 negatived
|
2710
2715
(Division 807)
| Motion No. 53 negatived
|
(Division 808)
| Motion No. 54 negatived
|
2720
(Division 809)
| Motion No. 55 negatived
|
2725
(Division 810)
| Motion No. 56 negatived
|
2730
(Division 811)
| Motion No. 57 negatived
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
2735
(Division 812)
| Motion No. 58 negatived
|
2740
2745
(Division 813)
| Motion No. 59 negatived
|
2750
(Division 814)
| Motion No. 60 negatived
|
2755
(Division 815)
| Motion No. 61 negatived
|
2800
(Division 816)
| Motion No. 62 negatived
|
2805
(Division 817)
| Motion No. 63 negatived
|
2810
(Division 818)
| Motion No. 64 negatived
|
2815
(Division 819)
| Motion No. 65 negatived
|
2820
(Division 820)
| Motion No. 66 negatived
|
2825
(Division 821)
| Motion 67 agreed to
|
2830
(Division 822)
| Motion No. 68 negatived
|
2835
(Division 823)
| Motion No. 69 negatived
|
2840
(Division 824)
| Motion No. 70 negatived
|
2845
(Division 825)
| Motion No. 72 negatived
|
2850
(Division 826)
| Motion No. 73 negatived
|
2855
2900
(Division 827)
| Motion No. 74 negatived
|
2905
(Division 828)
| Motion No. 75 negatived
|
2910
(Division 829)
| Motion No. 76 negatived
|
2915
(Division 830)
| Motion No. 77 negatived
|
2920
(Division 831)
| Motion No. 78 negatived
|
2925
(Division 832)
| Motion No. 79 negatived
|
2930
(Division 833)
| Motion No. 80 agreed to
|
2935
(Division 834)
| Motion No. 81 negatived
|
2940
(Division 835)
| Motion No. 82 negatived
|
2945
(Division 836)
| Motion No. 83 negatived
|
2950
(Division 837)
| Motion No. 85 negatived
|
2955
(Division 838)
| Motion No. 86 negatived
|
3000
(Division 839)
| Motion No. 87 negatived
|
3005
(Division 840)
| Motion No. 88 negatived
|
3010
(Division 841)
| Motion No. 90 negatived
|
3015
(Division 842)
| Motion No. 91 negatived
|
3020
(Division 843)
| Motion No. 92 negatived
|
3025
(Division 844)
| Motion No. 93 negatived
|
3030
(Division 845)
| Motion No. 94 negatived
|
3035
(Division 846)
| Motion No. 95 negatived
|
3040
(Division 847)
| Motion No. 96 negatived
|
3045
(Division 848)
| Motion No. 97 negatived
|
3050
(Division 849)
| Motion No. 98 negatived
|
3055
(Division 850)
| Motion No. 99 negatived
|
3100
(Division 851)
| Motion No. 100 negatived
|
3105
(Division 852)
| Motion No. 101 negatived
|
3110
(Division 853)
| Motion No. 102 negatived
|
3115
(Division 854)
| Motion No. 103 negatived
|
3120
(Division 855)
| Motion No. 104 negatived
|
3125
(Division 856)
| Motion No. 105 negatived
|
3130
(Division 857)
| Motion No. 106 negatived
|
3135
(Division 858)
| Motion No. 107 negatived
|
3140
(Division 859)
| Motion No. 108 negatived
|
3145
(Division 860)
| Motion No. 109 negatived
|
3150
(Division 861)
| Motion No. 110 negatived
|
3155
(Division 862)
| Motion No. 111 negatived
|
3200
(Division 863)
| Motion No. 112 negatived
|
3205
(Division 864)
| Motion No. 113 negatived
|
(Division 865)
| Motion No. 114 negatived
|
3210
(Division 866)
| Motion No. 115 negatived
|
3215
(Division 867)
| Motion No. 116 negatived
|
3220
(Division 868)
| Motion No. 117 negatived
|
3225
(Division 869)
| Motion No. 118 negatived
|
3230
(Division 870)
| Motion No. 119 negatived
|
3235
(Division 871)
| Motion No. 120 negatived
|
3240
(Division 872)
| Motion No. 121 negatived
|
3245
(Division 873)
| Motion No. 122 negatived
|
3250
(Division 874)
| Motion No. 123 negatived
|
3255
(Division 875)
| Motion No. 124 negatived
|
(Division 876)
| Motion No. 125 negatived
|
3300
(Division 877)
| Motion No. 126 negatived
|
3305
(Division 878)
| Motion No. 127 negatived
|
3310
(Division 879)
| Motion No. 128 negatived
|
3315
(Division 880)
| Motion No. 129 negatived
|
3320
(Division 881)
| Motion No. 130 negatived
|
3325
(Division 882)
| Motion No. 131 negatived
|
3330
(Division 883)
| Motion No. 132 negatived
|
3335
(Division 884)
| Motion No. 133 negatived
|
3340
(Division 885)
| Motion No. 134 negatived
|
3345
(Division 886)
| Motion No. 135 negatived
|
3350
(Division 887)
| Motion No. 136 negatived
|
3355
(Division 888)
| Motion No. 137 negatived
|
3400
(Division 889)
| Motion No. 138 negatived
|
3405
(Division 890)
| Motion No. 139 negatived
|
3410
(Division 891)
| Motion No. 140 negatived
|
3415
(Division 892)
| Motion No. 141 negatived
|
3420
(Division 893)
| Motion No. 142 negatived
|
3425
(Division 894)
| Motion No. 143 negatived
|
3430
(Division 895)
| Motion No. 144 negatived
|
3435
(Division 896)
| Motion No. 145 negatived
|
(Division 897)
| Motion No. 146 negatived
|
3445
(Division 898)
| Motion No. 147 negatived
|
3450
(Division 899)
| Motion No. 148 negatived
|
3455
(Division 900)
| Motion No. 149 negatived
|
3500
3505
(Division 901)
| Motion No. 170 negatived
|
3510
(Division 902)
| Motion No. 171 negatived
|
3515
(Division 903)
| Motion No. 173 negatived
|
3520
3525
(Division 904)
| Motion No. 175 negatived
|
3530
(Division 905)
| Motion No. 179 negatived
|
3535
3540
(Division 906)
| Motion No. 182 negatived
|
3545
(Division 907)
| Motion No. 184 negatived
|
3550
(Division 908)
| Motion No. 187 negatived
|
3555
(Division 909)
| Motion No. 191 negatived
|
3600
(Division 910)
| Motion No. 193 negatived
|
3605
(Division 911)
| Motion No. 198 negatived
|
3610
(Division 912)
| Motion No. 199 negatived
|
(Division 913)
| Motion No. 201 negatived
|
3615
(Division 914)
| Motion No. 204 negatived
|
3620
(Division 915)
| Motion No. 211 negatived
|
3625
(Division 916)
| Motion No. 215 negatived
|
3630
(Division 917)
| Motion No. 219 negatived
|
3635
(Division 918)
| Motion No. 222 negatived
|
(Division 919)
| Motion No. 224 negatived
|
(Division 920)
| Motion No. 225 negatived
|
3645
(Division 921)
| Motion No. 227 negatived
|
3650
(Division 922)
| Motion No. 229 negatived
|
3655
(Division 923)
| Motion No. 231 negatived
|
3700
(Division 924)
| Motion No. 234 negatived
|
3705
(Division 925)
| Motion No. 235 negatived
|
3710
(Division 926)
| Motion No. 237 negatived
|
3715
3720
(Division 927)
| Motion No. 238 negatived
|
3725
(Division 928)
| Motion No. 240 negatived
|
3730
(Division 929)
| Motion No. 266 negatived
|
3735
(Division 930)
| Motion No. 269 negatived
|
3740
(Division 931)
| Motion No. 271 negatived
|
3745
(Division 932)
| Motion No. 273 negatived
|
3750
(Division 933)
| Motion No. 275 negatived
|
3755
(Division 934)
| Motion No. 280 negatived
|
(Division 935)
| Motion No. 283 negatived
|
3800
(Division 936)
| Motion No. 285 negatived
|
3805
(Division 937)
| Motion No. 286 negatived
|
3810
3815
(Division 938)
| Motion No. 288 negatived
|
3820
(Division 939)
| Motion No. 289 negatived
|
3825
(Division 940)
| Motion No. 291 negatived
|
3830
(Division 941)
| Motion No. 293 negatived
|
3835
(Division 942)
| Motion No. 295 negatived
|
3840
(Division 943)
| Motion No. 296 negatived
|
3845
(Division 944)
| Motion No. 297 negatived
|
3850
(Division 945)
| Motion No. 298 negatived
|
3855
(Division 946)
| Motion No. 399 negatived
|
3900
(Division 947)
| Motion No. 400 negatived
|
3905
(Division 948)
| Motion No. 401 negatived
|
3910
3915
(Division 949)
| Motion No. 402 negatived
|
3920
(Division 950)
| Motion No. 403 negatived
|
(Division 951)
| Motion No. 404 negatived
|
3925
(Division 952)
| Motion No. 405 negatived
|
3930
3935
(Division 953)
| Motion No. 406 negatived
|
(Division 954)
| Motion No. 407 negatived
|
3940
(Division 955)
| Motion No. 408 negatived
|
3945
(Division 956)
| Motion No. 409 negatived
|
3950
(Division 957)
| Motion No. 410 negatived
|
3955
(Division 958)
| Motion No. 150 negatived
|
4000
(Division 959)
| Motion No. 151 negatived
|
4005
(Division 960)
| Motion No. 152 negatived
|
4010
(Division 961)
| Motion No. 153 negatived
|
4015
(Division 962)
| Motion No. 154 negatived
|
4020
(Division 963)
| Motion No. 155 negatived
|
4025
(Division 964)
| Motion No. 156 negatived
|
(Division 965)
| Motion No. 157 negatived
|
4030
(Division 966)
| Motion No. 158 negatived
|
4035
(Division 967)
| Motion No. 159 negatived
|
4040
(Division 968)
| Motion No. 160 negatived
|
4045
(Division 969)
| Motion .No. 161 negatived
|
(Division 970)
| Motion No. 162 negatived
|
4050
(Division 971)
| Motion No. 163 negatived
|
4055
(Division 972)
| Motion No. 164 negatived
|
4100
(Division 973)
| Motion No. 165 negatived
|
4105
(Division 974)
| Motion No. 166 negatived
|
4110
(Division 975)
| Motion No. 167 negatived
|
4115
(Division 976)
| Motion No. 168 negatived
|
(Division 977)
| Motion No. 169 negatived
|
4120
(Division 978)
| Motion No. 172 negatived
|
4125
(Division 979)
| Motion No. 174 negatived
|
4130
(Division 980)
| Motion No. 176 negatived
|
4135
4140
(Division 981)
| Motion No. 177 negatived
|
4145
(Division 982)
| Motion No. 178 negatived
|
(Division 983)
| Motion No. 180 negatived
|
4150
(Division 984)
| Motion No. 181 negatived
|
4155
(Division 985)
| Motion No. 183 negatived
|
4200
(Division 986)
| Motion No. 185 negatived
|
4205
(Division 987)
| Motion No. 186 negatived
|
(Division 988)
| Motion No. 188 negatived
|
4210
(Division 989)
| Motion No. 189 negatived
|
4215
(Division 990)
| Motion No. 190 negatived
|
4220
(Division 991)
| Motion No. 192 negatived
|
(Division 992)
| Motion No. 194 negatived
|
4225
(Division 993)
| Motion No. 195 negatived
|
4230
(Division 994)
| Motion No. 196 negatived
|
4235
(Division 995)
| Motion No. 197 negatived
|
(Division 996)
| Motion No. 200 negatived
|
4240
(Division 997)
| Motion No. 202 negatived
|
4245
(Division 998)
| Motion No. 203 negatived
|
(Division 999)
| Motion No. 205 negatived
|
4250
(Division 1000)
| Motion No. 206 negatived
|
4255
(Division 1001)
| Motion No. 207 negatived
|
4300
(Division 1002)
| Motion No. 208 negatived
|
(Division 1003)
| Motion No. 209 negatived
|
4305
(Division 1004)
| Motion No. 210 negatived
|
4310
(Division 1005)
| Motion No. 212 negatived
|
(Division 1006)
| Motion No. 213 negatived
|
4315
(Division 1007)
| Motion No. 214 negatived
|
4320
(Division 1008)
| Motion No. 216 negatived
|
4325
(Division 1009)
| Motion No. 217 negatived
|
4330
(Division 1010)
| Motion No. 218 negatived
|
4335
(Division 1011)
| Motion No. 220 negatived
|
4340
(Division 1012)
| Motion No. 221 negatived
|
(Division 1013)
| Motion No. 223 negatived
|
4345
(Division 1014)
| Motion No. 226 negatived
|
4350
(Division 1015)
| Motion No. 228 negatived
|
4355
(Division 1016)
| Motion No. 230 negatived
|
4400
(Division 1017)
| Motion No. 232 negatived
|
4405
(Division 1018)
| Motion No. 233 negatived
|
4410
(Division 1019)
| Motion No. 236 negatived
|
4415
(Division 1020)
| Motion No. 239 negatived
|
(Division 1021)
| Motion No. 241 negatived
|
4420
(Division 1022)
| Motion No. 242 negatived
|
4425
(Division 1023)
| Motion No. 243 negatived
|
4430
(Division 1024)
| Motion No. 244 negatived
|
4435
(Division 1025)
| Motion No. 245 negatived
|
4440
(Division 1026)
| Motion No. 246 negatived
|
4445
(Division 1027)
| Motion No. 247 negatived
|
4450
(Division 1028)
| Motion No. 248 negatived
|
(Division 1029)
| Motion No. 249 negatived
|
4455
(Division 1030)
| Motion No. 250 negatived
|
4500
(Division 1031)
| Motion No. 252 negatived
|
4505
(Division 1032)
| Motion No. 253 negatived
|
4510
(Division 1033)
| Motion No. 254 negatived
|
4515
(Division 1034)
| Motion No. 255 negatived
|
(Division 1035)
| Motion No. 256 negatived
|
4520
(Division 1036)
| Motion No. 257 negatived
|
4525
(Division 1037)
| Motion No. 258 negatived
|
4530
(Division 1038)
| Motion No. 259 negatived
|
4535
(Division 1039)
| Motion No. 260 negatived
|
4540
(Division 1040)
| Motion No. 261 negatived
|
(Division 1041)
| Motion No. 262 negatived
|
4545
(Division 1042)
| Motion No. 263 negatived
|
4550
(Division 1043)
| Motion No. 264 negatived
|
4555
(Division 1044)
| Motion No. 265 negatived
|
(Division 1045)
| Motion No. 267 negatived
|
4600
(Division 1046)
| Motion No. 268 negatived
|
(Division 1047)
| Motion No. 270 negatived
|
4605
(Division 1048)
| Motion No. 272 negatived
|
4610
(Division 1049)
| Motion No. 274 negatived.
|
4615
(Division 1050)
| Motion No. 276 negatived
|
(Division 1051)
| Motion No. 277 negatived
|
4620
(Division 1052)
| Motion No. 278 negatived
|
4625
(Division 1053)
| Motion No. 281 negatived
|
4630
(Division 1054)
| Motion No. 282 negatived
|
(Division 1055)
| Motion No. 284 negatived
|
4635
(Division 1056)
| Motion No. 287 negatived
|
4640
(Division 1057)
| Motion No. 290 negatived
|
4645
(Division 1058)
| Motion No. 292 negatived
|
4650
(Division 1059)
| Motion 294 negatived
|
4655
(Division 1060)
| Motion No. 299 negatived
|
(Division 1061)
| Motion No. 300 negatived
|
4700
(Division 1062)
| Motion No. 301 negatived
|
4705
(Division 1063)
| Motion No. 302 negatived
|
4710
(Division 1064)
| Motion No. 303 negatived
|
4715
(Division 1065)
| Motion No. 304 negatived
|
(Division 1066)
| Motion No. 305 negatived
|
4720
(Division 1067)
| Motion No. 306 negatived
|
4725
(Division 1068)
| Motion No. 307 negatived
|
4730
(Division 1069)
| Motion No. 308 negatived
|
(Division 1070)
| Motion No. 309 negatived
|
4735
(Division 1071)
| Motion No. 310 negatived.
|
4740
(Division 1072)
| Motion No. 311 negatived
|
4745
(Division 1073)
| Motion No. 312 negatived
|
4750
(Division 1074)
| Motion No. 313 negatived
|
4755
(Division 1075)
| Motion No. 314 negatived
|
(Division 1076)
| Motion No. 315 negatived
|
4800
(Division 1077)
| Motion No. 316 negatived
|
4805
(Division 1078)
| Motion No. 317 negatived
|
4810
(Division 1079)
| Motion No. 318 negatived
|
4815
(Division 1080)
| Motion No. 319 negatived
|
(Division 1081)
| Motion No. 320 negatived
|
4820
(Division 1082)
| Motion No. 321 negatived
|
4825
(Division 1083)
| Motion No. 322 negatived.
|
4830
(Division 1084)
| Motion No. 323 negatived
|
4835
(Division 1085)
| Motion No. 324 negatived
|
4840
(Division 1086)
| Motion No. 325 negatived
|
4845
(Division 1087)
| Motion No. 326 negatived
|
(Division 1088)
| Motion No. 327 negatived
|
4850
(Division 1089)
| Motion No. 328 negatived
|
4855
(Division 1090)
| Motion No. 329 negatived
|
(Division 1091)
| Motion No. 330 negatived
|
4900
(Division 1092)
| Motion No. 331 negatived
|
4905
(Division 1093)
| Motion No. 332 negatived
|
(Division 1094)
| Motion No. 333 negatived
|
4910
(Division 1095)
| Motion No. 334 negatived
|
4915
(Division 1096)
| Motion No. 335 negatived
|
4920
(Division 1097)
| Motion No. 336 negatived
|
4925
(Division 1098)
| Motion No. 337 negatived
|
(Division 1099)
| Motion No. 338 negatived
|
4930
(Division 1100)
| Motion No. 339 negatived
|
4935
(Division 1101)
| Motion No. 340 negatived
|
4940
(Division 1102)
| Motion No. 341 negatived
|
4945
(Division 1103)
| Motion No. 342 negatived
|
4950
(Division 1104)
| Motion No. 343 negatived
|
4955
(Division 1105)
| Motion No. 344 negatived
|
(Division 1106)
| Motion No. 345 negatived
|
5000
(Division 1107)
| Motion No. 346 negatived
|
5005
(Division 1108)
| Motion No. 347 negatived
|
(Division 1109)
| Motion No. 348 negatived
|
5010
(Division 1110)
| Motion No. 349 negatived
|
5015
(Division 1111)
| Motion No. 350 negatived
|
(Division 1112)
| Motion No. 351 negatived
|
5020
(Division 1113)
| Motion No. 352 negatived
|
(Division 1114)
| Motion No. 353 negatived
|
5025
(Division 1115)
| Motion No. 354 negatived
|
5030
(Division 1116)
| Motion No. 355 negatived
|
(Division 1117)
| Motion No. 356 negatived
|
5035
(Division 1118)
| Motion No. 357 negatived
|
5040
(Division 1119)
| Motion No. 358 negatived
|
5045
(Division 1120)
| Motion No. 359 negatived
|
5050
(Division 1121)
| Motion No. 360 negatived
|
5055
(Division 1122)
| Motion No. 361 negatived
|
5100
(Division 1123)
| Motion No. 362 negatived
|
5105
(Division 1124)
| Motion No. 363 negatived
|
5110
(Division 1125)
| Motion No. 364 negatived
|
5115
(Division 1126)
| Motion No. 365 negatived.
|
(Division 1127)
| Motion No. 366 negatived.
|
5120
(Division 1128)
| Motion No. 367 negatived
|
5125
(Division 1129)
| Motion No. 368 negatived
|
5130
(Division 1130)
| Motion No. 369 negatived
|
5135
(Division 1131)
| Motion No. 370 negatived
|
5140
(Division 1132)
| Motion No. 371 negatived
|
5145
(Division 1133)
| Motion No. 372 negatived
|
5150
(Division 1134)
| Motion No. 373 negatived
|
5155
(Division 1135)
| Motion No. 374 negatived
|
5200
(Division 1136)
| Motion No. 375 negatived
|
(Division 1137)
| Motion No. 376 negatived
|
5205
(Division 1138)
| Motion No. 377 negatived
|
5210
(Division 1139)
| Motion No. 378 negatived
|
5215
(Division 1140)
| Motion No. 379 negatived
|
5220
(Division 1141)
| Motion No. 380 negatived
|
5225
(Division 1142)
| Motion No. 381 negatived
|
5230
(Division 1143)
| Motion No. 382 negatived
|
(Division 1144)
| Motion No. 383 negatived
|
5235
5240
(Division 1145)
| Motion No. 384 negatived
|
5245
(Division 1146)
| Motion No. 385 negatived
|
5250
(Division 1147)
| Motion No. 386 negatived
|
(Division 1148)
| Motion No. 387 negatived
|
5255
(Division 1149)
| Motion No. 388 negatived
|
5300
5305
(Division 1150)
| Motion No. 389 negatived
|
5310
(Division 1151)
| Motion No. 390 negatived
|
5315
(Division 1152)
| Motion No. 391 negatived
|
5320
(Division 1153)
| Motion No. 392 negatived
|
5325
(Division 1154)
| Motion No. 393 negatived
|
5330
(Division 1155)
| Motion No. 394 negatived
|
5335
(Division 1156)
| Motion No. 395 negatived
|
5340
(Division 1157)
| Motion No. 396 negatived
|
5345
(Division 1158)
| Motion No. 397 negatived
|
5355
(Division 1159)
| Motion No. 398 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
5405
(Division 1160)
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 63
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 13, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
WESTRAY MINE
The House resumed from March 3 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to talk about this
issue which stems from an awful disaster that happened in 1992 in
Nova Scotia not too far from my riding. I remember it well. I was
the member of parliament for Cumberland—Colchester at the time.
I represent an area that has a large number of coal mines and we
have seen our share of coal mine disasters in Springhill, River
Hebert, Joggins and all those places that thrived on coal in the
early years. This motion is very dear to my heart.
The father of the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who initiated this motion was the
member of parliament for that area. I remember going to the
scene of the disaster and the Hon. Elmer MacKay was there
virtually 24 hours a day until it was determined that there was
no more hope for the 26 miners lost. He worked with the people
hand in hand and was always present to help them.
I want to congratulate my colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for working so hard to ensure
that workplace safety is a top priority of the Government of
Canada as well as the business community.
We will be voting on this motion. It will be interesting to see
which members are in favour of amending the criminal code to
protect workers in Canada from coast to coast. I am confident
this motion will gain the support of the entire House or at least
one would certainly hope so considering the ramifications.
This morning on the airplane coming to Ottawa I happened to open
the Globe and Mail and there was a story that reminded me
of the Westray incident. The article stated: “Ashen-faced
relatives stood in silence watching rescuers coated in coal dust
drag up the bodies of the people killed in the Ukrainian mine
disaster”. That just happened hours ago and it sounds exactly
like what happened in Westray. The draegermen were bringing up
the bodies. It was such a sad thing and to think it could have
been avoided.
I would like to take a moment this morning to read the motion.
It is important that we remember what we are talking about. I
will read the motion into the record so that everybody is clear
about what we are dealing with. Motion No. 79 states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other
appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with
Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry
into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring
that corporate executives and directors are held properly
accountable for workplace safety.
What could make more sense than that? The awful thing is that
the study to which the hon. member refers was started in 1992 and
was just tabled in 1997. His motion stems from that study.
The need for a rational standard of business behaviour goes
without saying. However it is every bit as important that once
the laws are established, provisions are created to ensure that
bureaucrats do not tokenize the enforcement of those laws. There
can be no double standards.
Enforcement administrators often give way to political
influences that persuade them that enforcement of workplace
legislation will sacrifice jobs and scare away industry.
Enforcement apathy is often rationalized by the political
suggestion that by giving a company the right amount of time the
problem will be fixed. This is often proven blatantly untrue.
Those people who have been persuaded that jobs and votes are
higher priorities than life enter into a clear conflict of
interest and it must stop. Many well-intentioned business
executives agree with this motion because it provides safety
legislation in the workplace. However there are still some who
do not. Sadly the benefits of their behaviours accrue only to
those executives and those people involved, while the workers,
their families and ultimately the Canadian taxpayer pay for their
gain. In fact current tax credit laws favour non-compliant
employers.
1110
Collectively workers represent the wealthiest group of people
and consumers in the country. It is from these workers that
taxes are collected which in turn fund the infrastructure which
stimulates an environment that creates additional wealth, so long
as the workers and employees remain healthy.
When injured, taxpayers often pay the financial costs of
rehabilitation, death benefits, retraining and lost productivity
that exceeds $16 billion annually. Every day through their
efforts Canadian workers earn the right to be protected with
enforceable legislation.
As an investment it is good business and cost justified to
protect Canadian employees. A small number of executives still
escape liability because their lawyers show them how to hide
behind jurisdictional boundaries. Even if convicted of violating
the occupational health and safety statutes, existing provincial
penalties are minimal compared to the rewards generated by their
violation. This motion would require total accountability of
executives with no loopholes.
Unfortunately we have seen many examples of occupational safety
in the workplace taking second spot behind the bottom line,
especially in the mining industry where the very nature of the
work involves a great deal of risk. It is the duty of company
officers to ensure the work is done in the safest possible
conditions.
I again refer to the newspaper article about the Ukrainian
explosion which so mirrors the Westray explosion. The article
said “a preliminary investigation suggested that Saturday's
accident was a methane explosion caused by a violation of safety
standards”. That is exactly what happened at Westray.
Ukraine's energy minister also said that safety violations were
likely at fault. The miners usually blame accidents on the
unwillingness of officials to spend money on maintaining or
upgrading safety equipment. History certainly has repeated
itself there.
Often corporate executives sometimes seem less interested in the
merits of workplace safety in pursuit of the bottom line. This
is a very dangerous scenario. We must be mindful of it and do
everything we can to prevent it.
In the case of the Westray tragedy, labour safety standards, in
particular minimal safety standards, were not adhered to to the
extent they should have been, much like we have read about
regarding the Ukrainian explosion.
Looking at this issue in the larger context, there must also be
recognition of the role of government to ensure proper standards
are met, not only set but met. It stands to reason that when
weighing business goals versus those of safety, sometimes
businesses find themselves pulled in many ways. They have to
meet production deadlines, outperform competitors, increase
bottom lines, et cetera. That is where the human element and the
safety issue must be exercised.
Far too often businesses and indeed heads of corporations are
obsessed with financial gain leaving the safety of their workers
neglected. That type of short term gain often results in long
term pain, as was the case at Westray.
One thing that really struck me was the name of the study. The
report that was done on the Westray mine disaster was entitled
“A Predictable Path to Disaster”. That is a sad commentary on
safety in the mining industry and the executives involved in that
industry. A predictable path; they could have predicted that the
disaster was going to happen, yet it still did.
Safety regulations, management and government all failed in
their duties to those miners. Tough economic times which exist
in the country put further pressure on workers. That is why this
is so timely. The economic impact of having to shut down a
corporation affects everyone in that company. The employees,
management, board of directors and anyone associated with that
business are going to feel a negative impact if there has to be
an operational shutdown as a result of a potential breach of
safety.
That is the cost of doing business and we have to do everything
to ensure that those safety practices are followed. In the case
of Westray they were almost trivial things which were overlooked:
sensors shut down, alarms disconnected, comments from the miners
disregarded, and things like that.
Companies must ensure the avoidance of hazardous or illegal
practices such as those which cannot be condoned in any capacity.
If companies have not already done so, they should do everything
within their power to implement safe and ethical work practices.
Ethics such as these should be studied and followed everywhere in
places of employment, especially in upper management. If this is
not the case, action must be taken to demonstrate the importance
and seriousness of the issue. Business executives must promote
and nurture safe work ethics and have an open and approachable
attitude toward all employees.
As Nova Scotia experienced with the Westray disaster, senior
bureaucrats within the provincial workplace and enforcement
agencies became compromised by regional politics and vested
interests.
This practice is suspected to be occurring in other provinces
even today, almost eight years after that explosion.
1115
I want to wind up my comments by saying that I hope the whole
House will look at this bill for what it is. It is a motion to
protect workers in a very unsafe situation. It addresses a
terrible safety record. It is time now that we in the House pull
together and do something to address those issues.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to address this motion. For
me, one of the most profound and distressing events that occurred
in Nova Scotia during my 14 years of serving as leader of the New
Democratic Party in that province was the Westray disaster, which
absolutely avoidably and unnecessarily cost 26 miners their lives
and cost their families the loss of loved ones.
I have always taken seriously the request that was made to me by
some of the widows of those Westray miners that I, along with
every other elected politician in office, pledge to ensure that
the fathers of the children of those Westray miners would not
have lost their lives in vain because we would move to put in
place the necessary legislation, the necessary protection, to
ensure that no such disaster could ever occur again in Nova
Scotia or anywhere in the country, and this is the subject of the
motion that is before us.
I am torn by conflicting emotions as we discuss this motion. On
the one hand I am filled with hope, and I think many Canadian
workers will be, that health and safety is the subject of debate
in the House. That is a very important thing and I want to
commend the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for
bringing forward this motion and other members of the House who
have risen to support the motion that is before us. The needless
loss of 26 miners still buried beneath the ground has not been
forgotten, and that is a very important message.
As the previous member who spoke indicated, one cannot be
unmindful of the chilling news of the death of 80 miners in
Ukraine which has occurred in the last few days. Let us not be
so smug in the House as to think that the same kind of unsafe
conditions, the same kind of neglect by employers and governments
cannot repeat itself in Canada. Until we take serious
legislative measures to put in place the protections that are
necessary, including an enactment in legislation of the sentiment
of this motion, this situation can and indeed will occur again.
The disappointing thing at this point in the debate about this
very important health and safety topic is that it would appear
that it is the intention of the federal Liberal government to
never really put this debate into action. The intention of the
government is not only to try to forget the lost lives at
Westray, but to ignore the simple, horrifying reality across the
country that there are workers who continue to be put into unsafe
working conditions and the people who put them there remain
immune from criminal responsibility.
There will be, no doubt, Liberal members of parliament who will
stand in protest and they too will proclaim their concern, their
care about Canadian workers, how they hope a disaster like
Westray will never again happen. However, until we enact
legislation that embodies the spirit of this motion, then such
speeches will be little more than empty rhetoric.
Motion No. 79 is just that, it is a motion. It has no
legislative implications. Indeed we have seen in the past that
this government will from time to time support such motions, only
to ignore the issue in its entirety when it comes to enacting
legislation to express the intent of the motion.
However, in this case the government will not be allowed to fool
the Canadian people so easily because it is our responsibility to
ensure that the government is forced to act upon this.
1120
At issue in this motion is recommendation No. 73 of the
exhaustive Westray report. That recommendation would establish
criminal responsibility for decision makers who knowingly put
their workers at undue risk. It is the basis for this motion and
the basis for my private member's Bill C-259.
Supporting the motion which is before us would tell Canadian
workers that their representatives will stand for them.
Supporting Bill C-259 would show Canadian workers that their
representatives will stand for them. Unfortunately, the
government appears determined to send a very different message.
I bring to the attention of the House where the Liberal
government stands today on workplace safety. I will quote from
letters written by members of the government in response to my
requests for support for Bill C-259. What did the Minister of
Labour say? She said that it falls under the jurisdiction of the
justice department. The translation of her statement is that
worker safety is not the labour minister's problem.
What about the Minister of Justice? She said:
I share your concern that people in Canada should not be able to
hold themselves above the law...my officials are giving this
recommendation every consideration.
The translation of that statement is “We have had three years
to do something about this, but don't hold your breath”.
I think the clincher comes from the Prime Minister's office:
I share your concerns about the Westray Mine explosion...that is
why the government has a comprehensive range of programs to
promote workplace safety.
The translation of that statement is “Despite everything that
the Westray inquiry documented, despite the recommendations
coming out of the Westray inquiry, despite the fact that workers
continue to be put in unsafe working conditions, there is no real
problem. The existing regime does the job”.
If the existing regime did the job, then there would not have
been 26 miners' lives lost in the Westray explosion.
I plead with members of the House to recognize that this is not
a partisan issue. We all know that every member elected to the
House of Commons has constituents who, at this very moment, as we
speak about the motion which is before us, are working in unsafe
conditions, who are forced to work in unsafe conditions because
of the inadequacy of the legislation that exists in the country.
Whether to stand for those working Canadians is not a choice.
Standing for those Canadians working in unsafe health and safety
conditions is our obligation and I urge every member of the House
to vote in support of the motion which is before us.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. 79. I commend the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his commitment to
this issue and his foresight in introducing this motion in the
House of Commons for debate.
It is unfortunate that an issue of this importance—the issue of
accountability for corporate executives and occupational
safety—is not taken more seriously by the government. It is
very frustrating for individual members of the House to pursue
public policy issues with such vigour, initiative and vision on
behalf of Canadians when they are continually shut down by the
government. Instead of focusing on the types of important public
policy initiatives that Canadians need into the next century, it
is only focused on next week's polls.
1125
The Westray disaster of May 9, 1992 continues to resonate as a
beacon of what should be done to improve worker safety, not just
in Canada but around the world.
Earlier today I heard the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester
speak of the recent mine disaster in Ukraine. Canada can play a
role in introducing changes to our criminal code that would be
world leading in terms of their impact on occupational health and
safety issues and corporate accountability, not just in Canada
but around the world.
I remember the time of the disaster in 1992. I was on business
in New York when I heard the news. It was one of the few times I
listened to national public radio in New York. I was running in
Central Park when I heard the news. It was one of the few times
that I ever heard about Nova Scotia in the U.S. national media.
It was a sad moment because, of all the positive things that we
understand about Nova Scotia and Canada, it is often this kind of
disaster that captures the U.S. media. The sadness continues to
affect those families, whose lives have been forever changed by
the disaster.
I am not surprised that the government is opposed to improving
corporate accountability on occupational health and safety
issues. This is the same government that ignores issues of
accountability even for its cabinet ministers. One of the
fundamental tenets of our democratic system and of parliamentary
democracy is the accountability of ministers of the crown. The
government ignores even the accountability of ministers in its
own cabinet. For example, the debacle with the HRDC minister has
focused the attention of Canadians on issues of waste in
government in recent weeks. I guess it is consistent with this
government that it continues to ignore issues of accountability,
whether it is corporate accountability in the case of Motion No.
79 or ministerial accountability in terms of the government's
malaise in effecting positive change with respect to the
accountability of its own ministers.
The chilling message that came from the Westray disaster was
that even today, in this day and age, occupational health and
safety issues continually are ignored by companies, particularly,
it would seem, in the coal mining industry, but in other sectors
as well.
Increasingly executives are compensated based on stock options.
While that can be very positive in terms of creating a
synergistic relationship between the goals of the executive from
a compensatory perspective and the goals of the shareholders by
encouraging executives to maximize shareholder value, it can also
focus the efforts of executives on very short term results which
can often have a negative impact on the long term results of a
company, whether it is corporate and financial, or in this case
the safety of workers.
We cannot put a price on life. It is impossible to value human
life on a balance sheet or on an earnings statement. Often
companies are so focused on the bottom line that they forget the
basics of humanity in terms of providing a safe work space for
workers who, every day of their lives in the coal mining
industry, in this case, risk their lives.
Government needs to provide a role in overseeing and ensuring
that on an ongoing basis these workers are protected by changing
the criminal code as recommended by the Westray inquiry. With
this legislation we would ensure that government continue to play
the very important role that only government can play to ensure
that the corporate sector does its part to ensure the safety of
workers in what is a very dangerous industry.
1130
Part of the issue as well is temptation. Far too often in areas
like Atlantic Canada that have seen significant economic issues
and a downturn over the last 30 years, in the haste to attract
and to maintain industry there is a tendency to turn a blind eye
to some of the health and safety issues. That very short term
focus is going to have some very negative long term results.
The Government of Canada can play a proactive role in the same
light that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is
playing a proactive visionary role in introducing this motion.
The government can play a proactive visionary role in actually
supporting legislation to ensure that there are not different
sets of health and safety standards for different regions of the
country. Just because a region has some economic downturn
issues, the workers in that region should not have to suffer with
poorer occupational health standards.
The legislation proposed in the motion would effect change in
the criminal code which would actually ensure that across Canada
corporate executives faced the same stringent level of
accountability. Atlantic Canada would see, whether it is in the
coal mining industry or another industry, a greater level of
protection for workers. They go to work every day and struggle
to make ends meet, to try to build a better future for
themselves, for their families and for Canada. They should not
have to live under the pall of a daily unnecessary threat to
their lives and their safety because of corporate negligence.
I encourage all members of the House to support Motion No. 79.
I commend the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for
proposing very sound legislation in the motion. We need to
ensure that occupational health and safety issues are dealt with
in the same way that environmental issues are dealt with strongly
by the criminal code.
Corporate executives must be responsible not just to their
shareholders but to Canadians at large, to the workers who toil
in the mines, to the wildlife that depend on a clean environment.
We need to ensure that environmental standards, health and safety
and occupational health issues are dealt with appropriately.
The only way to deal with these issues in the economically
driven and globally competitive society we live in today is
through strong changes to the criminal code to ensure that all
workers are safe in their workplace. All corporate executives
must do everything they can to ensure that Canada has the highest
standards in occupational health and safety in the world.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it was not my intention to speak to the motion. However
because the previous three members who spoke have more or less
moved away from the generalities of the motion and directed their
attention solely to the Westray disaster, I would like to make a
contribution. I am a mining engineer by profession and I have
worked many years underground in many parts of the world. I would
like to give the House my particular take on this disaster.
The last member who spoke made specific reference to the
negligence of the regulatory system. He did not use those words
but I will use them. I believe that the heart of the problem at
Westray was that there was such enormous political pressure to
open this mine in the first place, when there was good advice
from mining experts that it was not a viable operation, that the
shaft should never have been sunk, that they had had methane
problems in that area historically every time they tried to mine
there.
There was definitely a recommendation that the mine not be
developed. However, because of provincial and federal pressures
and the huge amounts of government money put forward to get this
thing going, there was also pressure on the regulatory system. As
I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, I believe the mine
inspector was under considerable pressure not to shut that
operation down.
1135
When I was working in the mines, I never ever encountered a
situation where line management was anything but safety
conscious. Line managers would do whatever was necessary to keep
a mine safe. They had the advantage of having the mine
inspectors behind them. In other words, even if management in
Toronto said they had to get production up, line management could
still do whatever was necessary to keep the mine safe. They had
the full weight and force of the mine inspector behind them
because the mine inspector could shut them down. They had that
power.
We are perhaps shooting at the wrong target here. The problem
at Westray was not governance. The problem at Westray was safety
enforcement. Perhaps we might say that line management was
guilty but the mine inspection system failed. Any mine inspector
should have been able to spot the violations which have been
described here which took place in that mine.
Because there was this one particular disaster, let us not talk
about revamping a law which has served us well over the years.
That is the law which exempts directors. I am not talking about
executives or line management; I am talking about directors. Who
in the devil would want to be the director of a company if he or
she was going to be held responsible for things that are
happening out in the field? The directors do not make managerial
decisions. They have nothing to do with it.
A man would have to be insane to accept a directorial position
for which he is paid a very small amount of money with most
companies. There are directors of multinational companies who
are well paid, but the directors of most companies work for an
honorarium. They get paid so much a meeting and that is it. Who
would take on a position like that? Not me, not if I were going
to be held responsible for something that happened 2,000 or 3,000
miles away that I did not know anything about and had no input
into.
The problem here is government, government, government. The
government failed. The civil servants failed. A group of miners
was unnecessarily killed because the inspection system did not
work. The inspection system did not do its job. We rely on
regulators in industry in this country to keep everyone honest
and they did not do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member sponsoring
this motion for his tenacity, since I recall this motion being
discussed in a previous session. He has now been faithful to
himself and introduced it again, in light of the seriousness of
the issue it raises.
A mine explosion in Nova Scotia raised the question of whether
the legislation was or was not equal to the task of properly
handling a similar situation. The government of the province
mandated Justice Peter Richard to carry out a public inquiry in
order to cast light on all of the circumstances surrounding this
tragedy.
1140
An extremely sizeable report, released in November 1997,
provided a chronology of all of the events and a highly detailed
analysis of the legislation. The judge primarily addressed
provincial labour law, however, in keeping with the Nova Scotia
ministerial order.
Hon. members will realize we will set aside that part of the
report that addresses provincial legislation, because this is
the federal level and we do not want to do what the federal
government is generating complaints for doing, namely meddling
in jurisdictions which are not ours.
The judge did make some comments on the Criminal Code and call
for certain things.
We should perhaps act on his observations in view of what he
asked and show how seriously we take the report.
I repeat this, because I think it important: we support the
motion of the Conservative member, but we would like it to be
examined in the light of federal legislation. In order for this
to occur, the motion has to be referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights for consideration.
With what I heard today, members will understand, there is
nothing much left for me to say, except to move an amendment to
Motion M-79.
I move:
That the motion be amended by adding the following between the
words “amended” and “in accordance”: “following study by the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights”.
Once this study is complete, federal legislation may be really
focused accordingly and in appropriate response to the judge in
the matter.
I will quote what the judge said in this regard and more
precisely recommendation 73 of the report, which the
Conservative member's motion refers to. Recommendation 73 of
the Richard report reads as follows:
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice,
should institute a study of the accountability of corporate
executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of
the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada
such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that
corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable
for workplace safety.
This recommendation gives us the opening I mentioned earlier to
intervene in this matter and especially to do a detailed study
of all aspects of mining safety. I therefore move this amendment.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Prior to the expiry of private members' hour I wish to
advise the Chair that following consultations with my colleagues
from all parties, I believe you will find there is unanimous
consent to defer the vote on Motion No. 79 until Tuesday, March
21, 2000 at the end of government orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent of the House to proceed in such a manner?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1145
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
rise in the House as a member from Nova Scotia to discuss the
merits of Motion No. 79 put forward by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, one of my neighbouring ridings.
I want to thank the hon. member for bringing the motion to
debate in the House of Commons. I believe that health and safety
is something that should be debated in the House of Commons on a
regular basis.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, and on behalf of workers
across the country, I would like to offer a solemn prayer and
hope in our hearts for the wives and children of the 80 miners
who were recently killed in a blast in Ukraine. I believe I
speak on behalf of all members of the House of Commons in sending
our sincere condolences to everyone in Ukraine.
This motion works in conjunction with Bill C-259, a private
member's bill which the hon. member for Halifax, the leader of
the New Democratic Party, introduced concerning workers' health
and safety rights and bringing those who are criminally
responsible to justice.
What happened at Westray did not have to happen. Miners and
their families are very concerned about their loved ones who go
underground on a daily basis to earn their bread, and to pay
their taxes so that we in the House of Commons can put forth
legislation to protect them. For us to ignore their demands and
wishes is a dereliction of our responsibilities and our duties.
We simply cannot allow this to happen any longer.
There was an exhaustive Westray report which made some very
serious and admirable recommendations, but that report is now
three years old. What has the government done? Absolutely
nothing. I wonder if it is waiting for the next mine disaster
before doing something. Is it waiting for an election to be
called before it enacts legislation? It seems that is the only
thing that will make the federal Liberals move.
After a balanced and exhaustive report which was done to improve
the lives and the health and safety of workers in the
communities, especially in the extremities of the country outside
Ottawa, the government sits on the report and does absolutely
nothing.
Our party was founded on the principles of workers' safety and
workers' rights. We started in the CCF, with J. S. Woodsworth,
right up to the NDP led by the hon. member for Halifax. We have
been fighting day in and day out with our provincial counterparts
and our friends in the labour movement, with the CLC, to fight
for and protect workers' rights throughout the country.
On average, three workers lose their lives on a daily basis.
Three workers is three workers too many.
When I was growing up in Vancouver, 15 workers lost their lives
working on the Portmann Bridge.
On behalf of all Nova Scotians and working people throughout the
country, I encourage all political parties, especially those in
government, to take heed of this very special motion, as well as
the bill of my leader, Bill C-259, to take very seriously the
recommendations for workers' rights and safety and to ignore the
concerns of people like Clifford Frame and Peggy Whitte who have
absolutely no moral leadership in the country, who want to
extract wealth at the cheapest price possible, including that of
labour, and who leave the country when a disaster happens. There
was absolutely no moral leadership, and for any government to
support those two people over workers' rights is absolutely
disastrous and scandalous.
I encourage the entire House to support Motion No. 79 put
forward by my hon. colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment moved by the
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm is in order.
1150
[English]
It being 11.50 a.m., the time provided for debate has expired.
Accordingly, the question is on the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order
made earlier this day, the recorded division stands deferred
until Tuesday, March 21, at the end of the time provided for
Government Orders.
The Speaker: Before I hear a point of order from the hon.
parliamentary secretary, I would inform the House that I have
received two letters this morning.
[Translation]
I received a letter from the hon. member for
Verchères—Les-Patriotes, chief whip of the Bloc Quebecois, and
another from the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, deputy leader of
the Bloc Quebecois.
These letters have to do with the question of privilege raised
earlier by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
If these are new questions of privilege, I will hear them.
If this is about the question of privilege that was raised
earlier by the hon. member, I will hear members on new facts
surrounding that question, since I am now in the process of
preparing the ruling regarding this question of privilege.
I am told also that another letter was sent by the Bloc
Quebecois leader regarding this issue and I am sure that the
hon. Bloc Quebecois leader also wants to address this issue.
If there are new facts, I will hear them.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
AMENDMENTS TO BILL C-20
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
extremely important that I raise this question of privilege
regarding what I told you about on March 1, and regarding the
point of order raised by the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, on Friday, March 3.
1155
At the time, I asked you to examine a serious violation of the
privileges as parliamentarians of Bloc Quebecois members in this
House.
I gave you proof that the deputy principal clerk had rejected
amendments that we had not even tabled with the Journals Branch,
since he based his decision on the legislative counsel's data
bank, rather than on the amendments actually tabled by the Bloc
Quebecois.
I demonstrated to you that the freedom of speech of the members
of my party and their right to confidential dealings with the
legislative counsel had been violated.
Not only had the House staff usurped the right of the Bloc MPs
to select the amendments they intended to propose, but it also
committed a breach of confidentiality by consulting the body of
amendments the Bloc Quebecois had had the legislative counsel
prepare.
At the time I raised this question of privilege, I expressed
serious misgivings about the decision making process surrounding
the receivability of the amendments at the report stage. In
fact, certain amendments that were declared out of order were
amended in accordance with the comments by the Deputy Principal
Clerk in order to render them in order. Yet they were again
deemed to be out of order.
This new decision was then made the object of a point of order
by my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry who expressed, on
behalf of his colleagues, his dismay about this new refusal by
your staff.
These events, which occurred during the week prior to last
week's parliamentary recess, have a negative effect on the
debate at report stage on Bill C-20, which was begun on Friday,
March 3 and is scheduled to resume today.
Some amendments will be neither debated nor voted on, while we
have serious reservations about the grounds on which the staff
based the decision that they were not in order. The very
process by which amendments were selected might be questioned,
as it seems to be tainted by a number of defects and
irregularities.
On these grounds, Mr. Speaker, you have a duty to bring down your
decision on my point of privilege of March 1 last, and on the
point of order raised by my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry,
and to do so before resuming the debate at report stage and
before beginning today's voting process, because the government
House leader is obviously preparing to propose a time allocation
motion, which will force the House to decide on the motions at
report stage starting at 6.30 this evening.
The Bloc Quebecois will have great difficulty in taking part in
a process of debate and voting which is a deviation from the
rules and conventions of this House.
Do not treat this point of privilege lightly. The gravity of
the situation imposes a duty to exercise diligence. The
credibility of the institution that is the House of Commons is
at stake.
I would remind you that I am still prepared to make the
necessary motion to return this matter to the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, particularly the one element—for
my point of privilege involved two matters—relating to the
examination of a motion of privilege, which would refer to that
committee the question raised by the rejection of two
never-introduced amendments.
Before the debate is resumed, or as promptly as possible, and
especially before we vote, I expect your decision on the point
of order raised by my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
The Speaker: What I have heard is simply a summary of what you
said on March 1, before we left for the week's recess. I have
heard nothing new at this point. I have heard no new facts at
this point. I ask the members again, if they wish to intervene,
to keep to the facts. The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
is new is that there will be closure in a few minutes and we
want to know whether you will give a ruling on either the motion
by the member for Rimouski—Mitis or on the question of
privilege raised on the point of order before we vote this
afternoon.
1200
It is new, because as far as we are concerned, and I am speaking
for myself personally and for all the members of my party, we
would be put in a situation where we would feel the debate on
Bill C-20 would not be impartial here. That is a serious matter.
The Speaker: What the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois has just
said is very serious. It questions the position of the Speaker
of the House. We must absolutely be impartial. We must manage
as the rules we have here require. I hope the impartiality of
the Speaker of the House of Commons will never be challenged.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, if we were to vote without
hearing a decision or a ruling on what was raised, which is very
serious, my colleagues and I would be in such a situation.
I want to know whether the ruling will be given before we vote.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois just presented in a very
eloquent way the problem that confronts us.
A question of privilege was originally raised by the hon. member
for Rimouski—Mitis, who just reminded you of its nature. There is
at least one new development, namely that the government is
about to impose closure, with the result that we will likely
begin to vote this evening, at 6.30 p.m., on the various
amendments proposed at report stage of Bill C-20.
This creates two problems. The first one, which was raised by
the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, is that two of our
amendments, on which we worked with the legislative counsel,
were deemed out of order before even having been tabled.
This greatly affected our ability to actually table these
amendments later on, since they were deemed out of order before
even having been tabled. This is not to mention the much more
fundamental issue of the confidentiality that must exist between
each member of parliament and the legislative counsels.
1205
As for the voting process that will likely begin this evening,
you will agree with me that it poses a problem.
The second problem concerns the amendments that were first
deemed to be out of order. Explanations were provided to us by
the Deputy Principal Clerk, who told us why these amendments had
been deemed out of order.
We went back to the drawing board. We rewrote these amendments
by taking into account the points raised and, surprise, these
amendments were again deemed to be out of order.
You will agree that, if you were to rule in favour of the
question of privilege raised by my colleague, it would then be
necessary to include in the various groups of amendments all
those amendments that were deemed out of order for a reason that
we feel totally unjustified. It would be necessary to include
these amendments in the various groups, so that they could be
voted on this evening.
You will agree that we cannot possibly begin the debate on the
amendments to Bill C-20. Moreover, we cannot begin to vote on
these amendments if the Chair has not rendered its decision.
I want to stress what the Bloc Quebecois leader just said.
If we were faced with the prospect of beginning the debate and,
worse yet, of voting on the amendments proposed at report stage
of Bill C-20, without the Chair having first made its ruling, we
would have no other choice but to conclude that Bloc Quebecois
members are not treated impartially.
The Speaker: You are facing me with a dilemma. I intend to
render my decision before the voting this evening.
It is a bit of a concern to me that an hon. member is
questioning the impartiality of the Chair of this House. I know
that the matters we are going to discuss, debate and vote on
today are very important ones.
As I have said, I intended to bring down my ruling before the
votes, but I do not know when the voting will take place. The
hon. member may know, but I do not. Perhaps it will be this
evening, as he said, at 6.30 p.m. Perhaps it will be next week.
I do not know at this point, because I have no document or
opinion before me indicating how we are going to proceed.
It is troubling, however, that the Chair be asked to tell when
this will be done, or face having his impartiality questioned.
It is my intention to bring down my rulings before today's
voting. If that is what the hon. member wanted to know, that is
my intention.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
BILL C-20—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the
requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme
Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, not more than
one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration
of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be
allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and,
fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
government business on the day allotted to the consideration of
the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading
stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall
be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and
in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the state
of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment.
1210
[English]
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1300
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
| Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Leung
| Limoges
|
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Sekora
|
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 130
|
NAYS
Members
| Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
| Duncan
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
| Hanger
| Harris
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
| Lebel
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
| Proctor
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
| Wasylycia - Leis – 81
|
PAIRED
Members
| Hoeppner
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Nunziata
| Wood
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENTTO BILL C-20—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now prepared to deal with the point of
order raised by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry on
March 3, 2000 relating to certain motions in amendment to Bill
C-20, an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as
set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the
Quebec Secession Reference, which were found out of order.
[English]
I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter
to the attention of the House.
[Translation]
The hon. member stated that the motions in amendment submitted
to the journals branch were intended to clarify the working of
clauses 1(5) and 2(3) of Bill C-20 and did not go beyond the
scope of the bill. He maintained that, because the amendments
were ruled out of order, not only was he prevented from debating
them but that this action interfered with the rights of all
members of the House and constituted a restriction on his
freedom of expression and that of other members.
I can assure the hon. member that the scope and substance of the
amendments submitted by him were carefully considered.
1305
I also want to underline to the hon. member and the House that,
while preliminary assessments about such matters may be taken by
officials of the House, the review and approval of such
decisions remain the responsibility of the Speaker.
[English]
It is a responsibility that I take very seriously.
[Translation]
I have myself re-examined all of the amendments ruled out of
order, not in relation to their substance, but from a strictly
procedural perspective and I remain convinced that those
amendments the hon. member referred to do in fact go beyond the
scope and alter the principle of the bill as already agreed to
by the House.
I refer the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry to page 666 of
the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I wish to reassure
the member that the decision is purely procedural and not based
in any way on whether the subject matter is worthy of debate.
It was made in accordance with the traditions and practices of
this House.
For these reasons, I must conclude that the matter does not
constitute a valid point of order.
I thank the hon. member for raising this issue and trust that
this ruling has been helpful to him and to other hon. members.
Further to the question raised by the member for Rimouski—Mitis
on Friday, March 3, 2000, I wish to inform the House that there
was an error in the table for the voting on Bill C-20. The vote
on Motion No. 70 will apply to Motion No. 71. A revised voting
table is available from the table. I regret any inconvenience
this may have caused the hon. members.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
AMENDMENTS TO BILL C-20—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: The deputy House leader of the Bloc Quebecois raised a question
of privilege on March 1, 2000 relating to the rejection of two
motions in amendment to Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the
requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme
Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.
These motions in amendment, declared out of order by the clerks
involved with the bill, were never forwarded to the journals
branch for inclusion in the Notice Paper.
[English]
Before beginning I would like to thank the hon. member for
raising the matter. I also want to acknowledge the contributions
of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon.
member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, as well as the House leader
for the Reform Party on this subject.
[Translation]
The acting House leader stated that on Tuesday, February 29,
2000, the Deputy Principal Clerk of the legislative unit
forwarded a letter to the office of the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois presenting the procedural details for rejecting some
700 motions in amendment to Bill C-20. These motions in amendment
were appended to the letter. The Bloc Quebecois had, in fact,
never forwarded two of the motions in amendment bearing the
reference numbers 5180 and 5163 to the journals branch for
inclusion in the Notice Paper.
After inquiries by the office of the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois, it became clear that the clerks working on the bill
had made an error by including reference to those two motions in
the covering letter.
The acting House leader argued that the privileges of the Bloc
Quebecois members and all members of the House have been
breached because of the actions of these clerks involved in the
performance of their duties, namely consulting a database that
the member contends is intended for the exclusive use of the
legislative counsel.
1310
The member went on to assert that the relationship of
confidentiality that must exist between the legislative counsel
and those members who request the drafting of amendments had
been breached and that this action constituted a contempt of the
House.
[English]
On behalf of all members of the House, I have looked carefully
into the actions and events related to this matter. Hon. members
should understand that House legislative counsel do not work in
isolation.
[Translation]
They are part of an operational team that supports the
legislative work of the Chamber and its committees. This group
is comprised of procedural clerks as well as legal drafters who
are assisted in their functions by text processing operators and
administrative support staff. The confidentiality to which the
acting House leader refers is shared by all staff within this
group for operational purposes.
There is no separate database for legislative counsel as the
hon. member suggests. The legislative database supports the work
of all persons having duties within the field of legislative
support operations.
[English]
Members should also understand that with respect to report
stage, there must be interaction between the staff of the
legislative services group, the clerk of the committee to which
the bill was referred, and the staff of the journals branch.
[Translation]
All staff of the House working in support of members in their
legislative function are governed by strict confidentiality with
regard to persons outside their operational field and, of
course, vis-à-vis other members.
In this case, I note there is no mention of any breach of
confidentiality whereby the text of proposed motions of the hon.
member or her party has been made known to persons working
outside the field of legislative support operations or to other
members. Confidential information proprietary to the Bloc
Quebecois and several of its members remained completely and
absolutely confidential.
Consequently, I am unable to find that this constitutes a prima
facie question of privilege or a contempt of the House.
I thank the acting House leader of the Bloc Quebecois for
bringing this matter to my attention and permitting me to make
this clarification to the House.
* * *
[English]
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
The House resumed from March 3 consideration of Bill C-20, an
act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in
the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec
secession reference, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this point
I will use the three minutes I have remaining to remind the House
of why we are here and why we will end up in the position we seem
to be inexorably heading toward tonight.
After the 1995 referendum there was a decision to ask the
supreme court what we might do in the event of another
referendum. The court said very clearly that in a democracy like
Canada, should there be a clear expression of the will of a
population in a region of Canada on a clear question about the
secession of that province, the Government of Canada would be
obligated to negotiate. The government has come forward with a
piece of legislation that puts that decision into law and nothing
more. It adheres very closely to the decision of the supreme
court.
From the moment it was even hinted that we might undertake to do
that, at every opportunity the Bloc indicated there would be no
co-operation, no discussion, no debate and no attempt to work
together to improve legislation as is often done in the House.
That is the purpose of this Chamber.
I note that the New Democratic Party and its House leader, who
was a member on the committee, worked hard to review the bill and
put forward amendments. I note that even the Reform Party came
forward in support of the bill and also looked at ways in which
the bill could be improved.
1315
Unfortunately, we end up where we are, responding to the
unending stream of statements and actions by members of the Bloc
who say “It does not matter what the debate is. It does not
matter what the logic is. We are going to do everything we can
to stop this”. Therefore, we end up in a very sad place, a
place where it is no longer possible to debate. I am sorry that
we are here, but we are here. Let me be very clear on this. We
are here because of the consistent and continuing actions of one
party in the House.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate having the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill C-20.
The clarity bill, as it has been called, is a bill which the
official opposition supports in principle. I might say that we
support it in principle because we think that confusion is
antidemocratic.
However, we disagree with the haste of this process. We
disagree with the imposition of time allocation. We disagree
with the arbitrary nature that the committee used to decide who
would appear as witnesses before the committee. I will not spend
a lot of time on those things because that disagreement has been
well documented.
We believe that a well informed public is better than a confused
public. On an issue as important as the breakup of our country,
to be well informed is very sensible.
It is not often that a politician makes a comment about his
opposing politician. However, I would like to make a positive
comment about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs across
the way. I believe that the minister has been forthright on this
issue. He has been pretty straight-up on this issue. He has not
changed his tune since he made up his mind that he was going to
look for clarity from the supreme court and carry it through. I
give him credit for that. He has been castigated in his home
province. He has been called unpleasant things. He has been
made fun of in caricatures. I would like him to know personally
that I do not agree with any of those things. I think he has
been at least honourable on this subject.
We can disagree with him, and I believe that it is fair to do
do, but in this instance I do not disagree with him. I want him
to know personally that I think the characterizations have not
been accurate nor proper.
I will spend a moment on the committee hearings to talk about
what I found most interesting. I attended all of the meetings
and found the old politicians to be the most interesting people
who appeared before the committee.
First, two of the witnesses I listened to opposed Bill C-20.
Claude Ryan, who is a man with enormous prestige in Quebec,
opposes Bill C-20, as well as Joe Clark, a politician who has had
many years of constitutional battles. I will not make comments
about the reasons they oppose the bill. They have reasons which
I think are debatable and arguable. However, those two senior
politicians both oppose Bill C-20.
I looked at those who came in support of Bill C-20. I found it
interesting that some of them fought those constitutional battles
with vigour themselves. I will list four of them: Claude
Castonguay, le père de l'assurance-santé, the father of medicare
in Quebec, is supportive of Bill C-20; Gil Rémillard, a senior
politician who has had long experience in Quebec, supports Bill
C-20 as well; and two politicians from outside Quebec, Ed
Broadbent and Bob Rae, both came to the committee and said they
support the bill.
I found it interesting when I asked them this question: “Did
you ever during your time battling these constitutional battles
ever say that a clear question was something that was valuable?”
They admitted that they had not.
They battled this without ever saying publicly that a clear
question was important.
1320
I also want to reflect on what Reformers think of the clarity
bill. I had the opportunity to poll Reformers. It was not a
poll which would reflect the views of every Canadian. It
reflected the views of Reform supporters.
It is fascinating that when asked if a clear question was
important, 98.7% of Reformers who responded said yes. When asked
the question, “Should the majority level be spelled out?”,
96.2% felt that the majority level should be spelled out. This
bill does not do that. That probably reflects my position that
the majority level could and should be spelled out.
When asked about the majority level, as to whether 50% plus one
was sufficient, especially if it also was to decide what part of
Quebec would stay in Canada, the percentage dropped to 77.6%,
still a pretty strong number of people saying that the level
should be spelled out.
I tried to reflect, all the way through the committee hearings,
on whether the question last time was clear. My way of deciding
was not to listen to those who on one side or the other have an
axe to grind, but to ask those who are experts in asking
questions of the public, and to my mind they are the pollsters,
those who do polling all the time. The pollsters told me that
when asking loaded questions we cannot expect anything but a
loaded answer. They ask “yes-no” questions, which of course
the referendum did as well.
When I asked the pollsters if the last question asked of
Quebecers was unambiguous or unconfusing, they said no, it was
neither; it was both ambiguous and confusing.
I posed to the pollsters what kind of question they would ask.
I received some uniformity in their answers, which I will distil
by saying that if there are two issues, two separate questions
would have to be asked. It would be something like the
following: “Do you want Quebec to enter a new economic
partnership” or whatever “with Canada?” To that question
there would be a response, yes or no.
I think that most Quebecers would probably answer yes, that they
would like to enter into a new partnership with Canada. However,
if we wanted to go further we would ask: “If that new
partnership is unsuccessful within a timeframe, do you want
Quebec to separate from Canada and sever all legal ties, yes or
no?” On that issue I believe that we would get a different
response from that which we had in the last referendum.
My analysis is that there are lots of people within and outside
Quebec who would like to have a new relationship with Ottawa, and
that relationship with Ottawa could well reflect a country that
was advancing, a country that was improving, a country with a
vigorous future. However, when asked if that new partnership
fails would they want to split up Canada, I think the response
might well be different. I know that there is very little
appetite for splitting up the country outside Quebec, and
certainly not in my part of the country.
Bill C-20 is imperfect. It could have been improved. It is a
step in the right direction. In principle it is supportable.
The official opposition will be supporting the bill unamended. I
think it literally will not be amended, unless there is some
surprise awaiting us.
It has been a privilege to represent interests from the western
part of the country on the bill.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words
before this bill clears the House. In that respect, I want to
reiterate my view that this bill has been rushed through in a way
that has discredited the parliamentary process.
For the record, it has been one of the low points in my
parliamentary life, watching the way this bill has been handled,
both by the government and in some respects also by the Bloc
Quebecois, because it has created a situation in which something
as important as the legislative framework for the secession of a
province from Canada has not been able to be studied in the way
that it should have been studied.
We were not able to hear from as many people as we should have.
We were not able to hear from them in a context that was
constructive and open to real change.
1325
I see the minister in the House today and I am glad he is here.
I would like to echo the complimentary, positive attitude of the
member who just spoke, but I would find that difficult. I do not
think the minister and the government have been open, unless I am
wrong and I find out later today that they will be open to some
amendments. They have not been open to building a consensus
around the bill that would enable not just Liberals but others to
go forward and claim this very important piece of legislation as
their own, so that it would be clear that, with the exception of
the Conservatives, there was some measure of federalist unity on
this issue.
I have been part of this process before. Even Pierre Trudeau,
who was noted for his determination and has been called all kinds
of things, including arrogant, tried to do things in the early
eighties which the NDP felt were important so that he could bring
us on side.
That is related to what is happening today. At that time the
NDP would not support the patriation package unless it was
amended to recognize the inherent rights of aboriginal people.
That had been left out. What did Pierre Trudeau do? On the
basis of being urged by the NDP, the patriation package was
amended. That is why we have section 35 today.
But nothing was learned. In fact, some things seem to have been
unlearned. We have Bill C-20 before us, and we have a bill,
insofar as it affects aboriginal people, that is pre the
patriation package. It does not recognize them at all.
Then we have something which is pre the patriation package, or
worse, because in this context we have made recommendations, in
conjunction with the Assembly of First Nations, the Grand Council
of the Crees, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and others, and
pleaded with the minister to accept some of the amendments we
have officially made and which aboriginal organizations have
recommended. So far, nothing.
We will be voting later today and the word I get from the
government is “no amendments”. So even the wisdom of that
time, the early eighties, of Mr. Trudeau and others trying to
build something that could bring people together, is not for this
minister. No, he knows everything and the rest of us are just
chopped liver, including the aboriginal leadership and everyone
else.
This is constitution making, as it has to do with the possible
breakup of the country or how it could be kept together in the
event of a referendum, depending on how one looks at it. It
needs to be approached with a far different spirit and a far
different frame of mind from the way in which the current
minister has approached it. Frankly, he has made it very
difficult. Maybe that is what he wanted all along.
He is making it very difficult for myself and others in my
caucus who supported the principle of the bill, who supported the
idea that there be a legislative implementation or framework
established pursuant to the supreme court opinion. We have
supported the need for a clear question, which is absolutely
fundamental to any referendum, the need for the rest of Canada to
be able to pronounce on whether it was a clear question and would
justify negotiations on secession, the need for a clear majority,
the fact that democracy was more than just a simple majority and
that there was a need for a qualitative judgment after the fact.
All of these things we have supported.
All we asked was that what the Assembly of First Nations and
others have identified as a fundamental flaw, to use the language
which they used in a letter released this weekend, be addressed,
that aboriginal people be listed as political actors, and that
the government be obliged to take their view into account.
Those are the two easiest amendments for the government. We have
submitted about six or seven amendments having to do with
aboriginal concerns, but the two easiest ones for the government
were to simply list aboriginal people along with the provinces,
territories and the Senate as people whose views the minister
would want to take into account in determining whether there was
a clear question and subsequently whether there was a clear
majority.
1330
The government will not do that. Why not? There is absolutely
no good reason for not putting the aboriginal people on that list
of people whose views need to be taken into account. There is not
a person on the other side of the House who could stand up and
give me one good reason why those two amendments could not be
accepted, except for the unmitigated, titanic, bloody arrogance
of that man over there, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
who thinks he knows everything about this country and that the
rest of us do not have anything to say.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe that is unduly provocative and unparliamentary.
I think it is uncalled for and the member should withdraw what he
just said.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I believe that the
member has gone overboard slightly this time. I will ask him to
resume debate but to please choose his words more carefully.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I have no intention of
apologizing because I did not say anything unparliamentary. All
I did was speak the truth.
Further to what I had to say, the government is revealing an
attitude toward this place that should concern the government
backbenchers. They themselves should be as concerned as I am.
They should be concerned about the way their own government is
acting.
The government is bringing into disrepute the parliamentary
process. It is bringing into disrepute a piece of legislation
that those members say is very important and which we agree is
very important. We said from the beginning we would try to take
this process seriously, even though it was introduced
surreptitiously on a Friday when the government said it would not
come in until Monday, then closure was moved on second reading,
then closure was moved in committee and we could not hear
witnesses we wanted to hear. Now we have this process. All the
way along there has been nothing but stonewalling, nothing but a
totally closed door and not just to us.
In the end it does not matter what happens to the NDP or our
amendments but it matters what happens to the ideas that our
amendments embody. That is that there should not be a retreat
from Charlottetown. There should not be a retreat from section
35. There should not be a retreat from all the things we have
accomplished in the last 15 years to establish aboriginal people
as constitutional and political actors in this country. That is
what this bill does. That is what makes it so fundamentally
unacceptable and regrettable.
I am here not just in sorrow but also in anger. I feel we could
have done much better as a parliament. We could have done much
better as a committee in spite of the fact that we had the kind
of obstacles that were put in our way by the Bloc Quebecois. The
government could have taken St. Paul's advice and tried to
overcome evil with good instead of wrong for wrong, arrogance for
arrogance, mistake for mistake, contempt for contempt. That is
all we got. It is regrettable, truly regrettable.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, this
is one of the last minutes in which we can speak of this bill.
The way things are going at present with the government, this
may be one of the last times MPs will be able to speak in this
House. Having three gag orders on one bill is absolutely
incredible. That is how the present government operates.
I will savour these next 10 minutes, because I am not sure
whether the government will allow me to speak on behalf of my
party for the rest of the session. That is how things are going
at this time.
1335
I would like to make two or three brief comments. First of all,
one to my caucus. From the start, four members had decided to
support the bill, because everyone agrees that having clarity on
the question and on what constitutes a majority might facilitate
things.
I am addressing them. I hope that the hon. members are going to
see that the way the government is handling this bill is
preventing the elected representatives and citizens of this
country from being able to really speak out and reflect on this
matter. I trust that my colleagues are going to see what is
going on.
In a referendum process, after a yes vote of 50% plus one,
imagine how we are going to have our cage rattled, how much the
few rights remaining to the opposition will be trampled. The
way the Liberals are handling things now is not a very good sign
for the future.
I trust that our party will be the same as the country on Bill
C-20—united.
I heard what the Reform Party critic had to say. Not to be
disrespectful of the Reform, but I had a picture in my head. I
do not know if hon. members are familiar with the Simpsons, but
when people want to make fun of Homer Simpson, they stick a sign
on his back.
[English]
The signs says “kick me”. I think the Reform Party has a sign
on its back which says “Please kick me. I will love you
anyway”. That is the problem with the Reform Party. It is so
afraid of losing one vote on this issue in western Canada that it
is willing to have a sign on its back which says “Please kick
me. I will love you anyway. I am going to support the bill
anyway”.
[Translation]
There has been closure three times. The Reformers say they do
not agree with the process, but support the bill nevertheless.
It makes no sense. The official opposition is going around
saying that the government is wrong “No, you should not do that,
you Liberals, it is wrong, but we like you all the same and will
support you in this”. Such principles are not exactly cast in
stone.
There is my NDP colleague as well, who is in fine fettle today
and who said “It makes no sense the way they are treating the
first nations”. He is right, but his party will support the
bill in any case.
The member for Mount Royal, the expert on the committee, said to
the first nations “Your message has been clearly heard, we will
see there are amendments to have your thoughts taken into
account. No more, however. It will be like the provinces. We
will look after everything, trust us”.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona had his show, of course, but
according to the member for Mount Royal, the government will
support the first nations amendment. But, what happens if the
government does not support the amendment? There will be
problems with the credibility of the member for Mount Royal,
who, in committee, seemed to be speaking for the government.
But, in addition to that, what is happening with the New
Democratic Party's opposition?
What I would ask my colleagues in the Reform Party is to take
off the sign that says “kick me” and say it makes no sense.
I say to our NDP colleagues that we will be pleased to support
their first nations amendment. Our amendments were rejected for
the most part, in any case. We wanted clarity amendments. We
proposed clarity amendments and they were rejected in the
process.
1340
Do you know what amendments we moved? We proposed inclusion of
the words province of Quebec and National Assembly in the bill.
I base my remarks on what the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs said when he spoke about Bill C-20. In his 16 page
testimony before the legislative committee, the minister did not
mention British Columbia, Prince Edward Island or Cape Breton.
He spoke only of Quebec throughout those 16 pages.
During his whole testimony, he said how evil the sovereignists
and the Progressive Conservatives of Quebec were.
The government says “This bill is about clarity”. We want to
help it make things even clearer. The title of the bill refers
to Quebec, the preamble refers to Quebec and the minister, the
Prime Minister and witnesses spoke of Quebec but the bill itself
does not mention Quebec.
The word Quebec does not appear one single time in the text of
the bill. Why? Because they were too afraid. The sensitivities
of Quebecers could put the federal government at risk in the
future. As a principle, it is rather feeble.
What we hope is that all opposition parties will send a very
clear message: this bill is incomplete, it is a plan B bill, B
as in baseball bat.
[English]
One does not run a country with a baseball bat. That is not the
way this country should function. That is a big problem. These
stem from baseball bats or batons.
[Translation]
I believe there should be much more openness. Canadians should
be very concerned about the way this government is dealing with
this bill. The minister, in all his good will—let us give him
that—must be extremely disappointed that his bill had to go
through the parliamentary process. This bill has to be passed.
Why? So that the Prime Minister may say next weekend “We got it.
Now, here is the good news: thanks to the wonderful work of the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, of Cabinet and of the
Liberal Party caucus and thanks to my political instinct, if you
want to break the country, you will need to ask a clear question
and to obtain a clear majority”.
It is a rather feeble excuse. They are happy, the country is
saved. But no. They are being told “Well, now you are going to
separate”. I remember one very interesting comment amongst all
the relevant comments we heard. There were some good witnesses,
not enough, however, because we did not have enough time, but
some. This one was from a witness from British Columbia. In
passing, it was not a Conservative, but a Liberal. He said that
no matter what the question was, for example the question used
in 1995 or in 1980, with a result of 50% plus one—
You are now entering a new world.
He said “Whether there is any legislation or not, you are in a
new political, economic and legal world”.
The legislation can be improved as much as they want, what will
happen with a result of 50% plus one on a question like the one
used in 1995 and 1980, will be something new. It is certainly
not Bill C-20 that will solve everything, on the contrary. It
prevents us from finding solutions or alternatives. We are stuck
with a table of contents, a modus operandi. And they call that
flexibility.
The ambiguity Mr. Clark was talking about is the same ambiguity
that we were faced with when Mr. Trudeau said, back in 1980 “If
you vote no, it means yes”. Now that is ambiguity. As far as
flexibility is concerned, it remains to be seen.
I urge all the opposition parties and my colleagues in the
Conservative caucus to stand up and to stand united as we want
the country to be.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, you will appreciate that I was anxious to take
part in this debate. We are not pleased, however, to have to
speak to such an issue, to a bill on clarity which, I must say,
does not provide any.
1345
Instead, the bill before us creates confusion. It is
unreasonable and undemocratic. It fails to respect the letter
and the spirit of the opinion provided by the supreme court at
the request of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Bloc Quebecois certainly moved many amendments, but when the
government wants to introduce a bill on clarity, it must be
clear.
Let me read an amendment that I moved and which is part of Group
No. 1. We were asking, in Motion No. 2, that Bill C-20, in the
preamble, be amended by adding, before line 1 on page 1, the
following—and this is very important. You will understand later:
Whereas when the Quebec people were consulted by a referendum in
1995, the winning choice was the one that obtained a majority of
the votes declared valid, that is, fifty percent of the votes
plus one vote;
The people on the other side won last time. If they participated
and are still here, it is because we are democrats and we
respect the result of the votes. But they are scared of the
results, perhaps because the results were tight that time.
What did the government promise to us before the referendum?
That it would recognize the distinctiveness of Quebecers. That
was in the speech delivered in Verdun. We have already gone
further.
What about this declaration? The Prime Minister wasted no time
in pushing through this House a motion on distinct society.
You are the Chair. A motion is not as powerful as legislation.
When they want to tell Quebecers that they love them, they use a
motion. It is barely worth the paper it is written on. When
they want to clobber Quebecers, they use legislation. I am not
inventing this. We have a bill before us.
I would also like to add to the four adjectives I used earlier
an explanation on how this bill is confusing. It has to do with
the arbitrary criteria the minister is trying to include. He
wants to reserve the right to decide whether the question is
clear.
You have visited all of Canada and know that some expressions
used in eastern Canada are meaningless in western or central
Canada.
For example, there is one we often use in Quebec when it rains.
We say that it is raining nails, whereas in English they say
that it is raining cats and dogs.
Maybe the image is too simple, but how can they ask some
different provinces to determine the clarity of a question when
we have our own way of expressing ourselves in Quebec, as can
easily be seen from the ads in Quebec. Sometimes we use a
colourful language, but everybody understands.
The last time, the Prime Minister understood, but now he is not
quite sure. The day before the referendum he said “To remain
Canadian or not, to stay or to leave, that is the issue of the
referendum”. If even he could understand the question, it means
that the question was clear.
Why should we waste the time of the House in a debate like this?
During this time, the economic issues in this country are being
ignored. In the finance minister's last budget, we do not find a
single word about areas like mine which are hurting.
We are just back from a one week recess. People in Quebec and in
the Gaspé peninsula do not need clarity. What they need is money
to boost their economy. However, we never talk about that in the
House. I would like the House to discuss reasonable initiatives,
and give resources to people in our ridings.
This bill is unreasonable because it gives the federal
government plenty of reasons to prevent any negotiation from
taking place. Let us consider all the steps we have to go
through. We have to consult the provinces and the first nations.
I like the first nations, but let us not forget that what is at
stake is the right of Quebecers to decide their own future.
1350
When we joined confederation, there was no referendum. The
fathers of confederation made that decision among themselves.
However, the surprising thing is that, when more provinces
joined the federation, we were never asked for our permission.
We are nice chaps, we did not object in any way.
I know what I am talking about. I am come from the Gaspé
peninsula, the eastern tip of Quebec. All the ships carrying
settlers travelling to Upper Canada sailed in front of our
homes, but today, they are highhanded with our economy and our
future. People in my riding are fed up with such a government.
The bill is unreasonable because it also prevents Quebec from
offering a partnership to Canada. They want us to look like the
bad guys while they take away all the furniture including the
kitchen sink. We want to be able to make the decisions
concerning our future by ourselves, including the decision to
say that we would have a brighter future outside of Canada.
Every time we want to improve on things, we are gagged.
The bill is unreasonable also because it is contrary to the
position of all political parties in Quebec. Even Jean Charest,
the saviour, a former member of this House who was sent to
Quebec, does not approve of Bill C-20. Quebec's consensus should
be taken into account.
The bill is undemocratic because it subordinates the democratic
will of the Quebec people to the will of the rest of Canada. It
is our future. Let us decide by ourselves what we want.
The bill is undemocratic also because the federal government is
appropriating the right to reject the vote of Quebecers. The
bill will give more weight to a federalist vote than to a
sovereigntist vote.
The bill does not respect the letter and spirit of the supreme
court opinion. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has
made up requirements that are not mentioned in that opinion.
The bill does not respect the letter and spirit of the supreme
court opinion because the government chose what it liked in that
opinion and threw away all other democratic considerations. What
this bill proposes is unilateral action when the supreme court
condemned such a course of action.
In its opinion, the court insisted on the need to negotiate when
the bill is geared to prevent any negotiation. I move:
As many members have said, after being gagged, censured and
subjected to time allocation, as the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, I will have had
only 10 minutes to speak to a bill that could have an impact on
the future of Quebec and of my fellow citizens. It is not normal
that we were given only 10 minutes. If they want to claim to be
great democrats, they should let people express themselves.
I understand that this is not the Chair's fault. You are there
to apply the rules, but I believe that, for the people opposite,
democracy does not mean much. When I see the minister's smile, I
believe that he despises the people of my riding and of Quebec.
When he returns to Quebec, he will have to answer for that smile.
1355
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is with great honour that I enter the debate today.
What we are discussing is very important. It seems to underpin
the very democratic process not only of parliament, but of the
Canadian way in terms of how we do things and the importance of
what it means to act in a democratic fashion.
I listened with great interest to the Reform Party and the
member for Macleod. The one thing with which I agreed was his
congratulations to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The minister has done a tremendous job in this whole process and
deserves our congratulations, respect and thanks. Not only is he
a great Canadian but he is also a great Quebecer. It bodes well
for us as we move confidently into the 21st century to have a
person of his calibre leading very positively in the way he is
along with the Prime Minister.
The Reform Party really flip-flopped on this issue. It is
always disturbing to see how it never stands for Canada when it
counts.
I listed too to the NDP and the member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
He got a little outraged and put on a little theatre for us in
the House. Really what he did was quite trite. I assume he
knows his constitutional history but he certainly did not show it
today. If he knew his constitutional history he would know that
the aboriginal peoples are covered off in the constitution. They
will be very much at the table when it comes to making these
kinds of decisions not only for themselves and for whom and what
they represent, but for Canada as a whole.
I say to him and all Canadians, that process is in place and in
hand and we will do it in a manner consistent with the values—
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If the hon. member would understand the facts of what the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona said—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is debate. That
is not a point of order.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I will tell you what I am
saying. It astonished me, and the member reminds me of what the
leader of the NDP did when we first brought in the clarity bill.
Outside she was quoted as saying that the bill was stupid and
provocative. Those were exactly her words. I find it shameful
that the NDP would take that kind of attitude on such an
important bill, the clarity bill which underpins the very
importance of not only who we are but what we represent.
I say to my hon. colleagues in the Progressive Conservative
Party opposite, the party of Sir John A. Macdonald and Cartier,
imagine how they would be spinning in their graves. Imagine how
they are today listening to the Progressive Conservatives not
standing up for Canada, not being on the right side of history,
being on the wrong side of history, and their leader Joe Clark
saying the kind of nonsense he has been saying with respect to
this all important bill. It is shameful that the party of Sir
John A. and the party of Cartier has come to that. It is
absolutely disgraceful.
I had to give my head a shake to really understand what the Bloc
member who spoke before me was trying to say. Imagine having to
bring in an amendment to an amendment. Imagine threatening, as
Bloc members have now done, a thousand amendments on three
clauses. Imagine getting up day after day in the House of
Commons, in this great place of democracy, and reading 300 press
clippings and always caterwauling away. They say they represent
the democrats when in fact it is quite the opposite. They are
undemocratic. All they are trying to do is stall the business of
the House, stall what Canadians want us to do which is to bring
clarity to the debate once and for all.
But what do they do? They keep stalling. Even at the committee
they went on for five hours to try to talk it out so that the
business of the committee could not take place. Imagine the
disgrace and the shame. Quebecers and Canadians wherever they
live want no part of that kind of nonsense because it is
ridiculous. It undermines the very Canada for which we stand.
I cannot believe that they—
1400
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has at least
five minutes left to speak, but it is 2 o'clock and we will now
proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
COMMONWEALTH DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I invite Canadians to celebrate Commonwealth Day,
remembering our shared heritage and ready to work together to
tackle the challenges that lie ahead.
This year's theme, the communications challenge, is highly
appropriate at the start of the new millennium. Recent advances
in communications technology bring the challenge of ensuring that
the advantages of modern communications are available to all and
that they are used to bring us closer together.
Just a few months ago the Commonwealth held its heads of
government meeting in a democratic South Africa. There leaders
praised the role that the Commonwealth played in bringing an end
to apartheid. Nigeria, fresh from its own elections, also
expressed its gratitude for the Commonwealth's efforts to restore
democracy there.
Clearly the Commonwealth is making a positive contribution in
the world today.
* * *
RELIGION
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last Thursday protesters vandalized the Mary Queen of the World
Cathedral in Montreal. They were yelling against religion, spray
painting and defacing the cathedral, and overturning the
tabernacle and ripping up hymn books.
Seven people have been charged with unlawful assembly, assault
against police officers and obstruction. Hate crime charges were
not considered because “the elements were not there for charges
of that kind”.
Anti-religious vandalism such as this cowardly act is a hate
crime regardless of the religion, denomination or location, yet
our justice system discriminates between religions. A
National Post editorial notes:
What is missing is media and political outrage. Anti-Christian
hostility is one of the last acceptable bigotries in Canada. It
is observable not only in the bigots and thugs who attacked the
cathedral, but in federal bureaucrats, for example, who
instructed Swissair crash site mourners to make no mention of
Jesus Christ.
We would never accept an attack on other religious groups. We
should not remain silent when Catholics are the targets of
intolerance. Where is the outrage?
* * *
DAN DOYLE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 6
at 10.30 a.m., Dan Doyle of Woodstock, Ontario demonstrated great
generosity and selflessness when he jumped between a car and a
baby stroller, saving Brenda Craig and her 22 month old son,
Barry. In the resulting collision, Dan Doyle suffered a
fractured leg and rib while the mother and her child were unhurt.
Police and public alike are calling Mr. Doyle a hero. Mr.
Doyle's wife commented that his actions did not surprise her as
he is always watching out for other people and lending a hand
whenever possible.
We are not often faced with life-threatening situations. It is
heartening to know that there are some citizens who are not
afraid to put themselves in harm's way to save the life of
another.
I am proud to acknowledge the heroism of Dan Doyle. Thank you,
Dan, for your heroic example.
* * *
SENIORS
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Alliance of Seniors to Protect Canada's Social
Programs represents 25 organizations with a combined membership
of over 500,000 seniors.
The alliance has declared Toronto the most diverse city in the
world. It has noted that seniors reflect this diversity racially,
ethnically and culturally. Many seniors who are immigrants are
socially isolated due to limited language skills, cultural
inhibitions and discrimination. This makes accessibility to
social programs and services more difficult particularly in the
areas of health, community care access, housing and education.
The Government of Canada and the Alliance of Seniors to Protect
Canada's Social Programs recognize the importance of funding for
health care, the specific needs of seniors, and the special
linguistic and cultural requirements of minority communities.
We are committed to working with seniors toward programs and
services consistent with cultural backgrounds and needs of our
diverse and aging population. Together we will maintain and
enhance Canada's social programs in keeping with Canada's
reputation as the best country in the world in which to live.
* * *
[Translation]
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
RSW-Béroma of Val-d'Or will operate the first small scale mine in
the Abitibi, with a modular plant for ore concentration.
The unique features of this concept, compared to a conventional
plant, are its investment costs, its quick installation and its
mobility.
This initiative was made possible thanks to the leadership of
Laurent Bérubé and his team at the Val-d'Or plant, Charles
Veilleux, Gilbert Rousseau and Roger Jolicoeur, and the
involvement of the National Research Council of Canada and of
the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of
Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Liberal member for
Outremont, through his IDEA-SME program.
The project is located at the Granada gold deposit, northwest of
Val-d'Or, in the Abitibi.
* * *
1405
[English]
TARA SLOAN
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay respect to Tara Sloan, one of Canada's top
swimmers. Ms. Sloan passed on two days ago in Calgary after
being involved in a tragic car accident.
Tara was a five time Canadian breaststroke champion and set the
women's 100 metre breaststroke national record in the short
course pool. She was a great competitor with a passion for life
who proudly represented her country at the world championships,
the Pan American Games and the Commonwealth Games. She won 17
international medals.
At the national championships this weekend her Calgary teammates
dedicated their events to Tara. Her teammates won. They won the
men's and women's overall team titles.
Today our sympathy and the thoughts and prayers of this House
join with those of the family, friends, teammates and competitors
of this wonderful young Canadian, Ms. Tara Sloan.
* * *
[Translation]
FIGHT AGAINST RACISM
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
launching of the week against racism is taking place today, at
the Cinémathèque québécoise. This year's theme is about the
faces of racism in Quebec.
We must lead the fight against racism on an individual and
collective level.
We must always appreciate the opportunity that we have to share
our values of support and solidarity with cultural communities.
As individuals, we have a responsibility to apply these values
in our daily lives, so that those who settle in Canada feel at
home here.
However, the fight against racism is far from over. We must
eliminate the resistance that still exists, to ensure that all
new Canadians have access to a certain quality of life.
I call on all governments and organizations to work together to
ensure the best possible future for those who decide to come to
live in Canada.
* * *
BILL C-20
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, for the past few
days, the government House leader has been suffering from
proceduritis, and has been trying to change the rules of
Parliament through trickery.
Not content to have limited the debates on Bill C-20 in
committee, and not content to have rammed Bill C-20 through, the
specialist in dirty tricks and double-dealing has added insult to
injury with Motions Nos. 8 and 9, in order to change the rules
of the game in the midst of the debate.
How shameful, particularly for the Liberal members, who do not
want to voice their opinions on Bill C-20. We can understand
that the sole intent of the latest trick of the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons was to allow his colleagues
to avoid their duty as parliamentarians.
When the voting on Bill C-20 takes place, the people of Quebec
will finally know who is prepared to stand up to defend its
rights and who is prepared to stand up to defend democracy.
* * *
[English]
FARM SAFETY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with National Farm Safety Week about to end, let us
resolve to reduce farm related injuries throughout the year.
Farming is a way of life for over 200,000 farm families from
coast to coast to coast. It is also a profession with one of the
highest risks of on the job injury and death. Close to 700
Canadians died of farm related injuries between 1990 and 1996.
Most of these could have been prevented. Working with tractors
and other self-propelled equipment remains the leading cause of
death and injury with rollovers and runovers a serious concern.
Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
along with other farm safety groups are urging farmers to equip
their tractors with rollover protection structures and seatbelts.
That is what National Farm Safety Week is all about, getting
farmers and their families thinking about how they can protect
themselves from what are often needless injuries on their farms.
* * *
CURLING
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the people of British Columbia I would like
to declare that B.C. now stands for “Best Curlers”.
Yesterday skip Greg McAulay of New Westminster completed the
trillium of champions by capturing his first Brier championship
against the formidable Russ Howard.
British Columbia will be representing Canada at the World
Curling Championships in three categories: men's, featuring Greg
McAulay's rink of Brent Pierce, Brian Miki, Jody Svestrup and
Darin Fenton; women's, featuring Richmond's Kelley Law's rink of
Julie Skinner, Georgina Wheatcroft, Diane Nelson and Elaine
Dagg-Jackson; and junior men's, featuring Kelowna's Brad Kuhn's
team of Kevin Folk, Ryan Kuhn and Hugh Bennett.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the people
of Saskatoon who organized and supported the Year 2000 Brier,
setting a new attendance record.
Curling has long been on