House of Commons Hansard #221 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I feel the premise is that we just assume this $3,000 figure. I have not seen evidence to support it. That is fear mongering on the part of the auto industry to get its way with the government.
I have not seen the evidence that would support the $3,000. I used it because it was a threat that the automobile industry used to get its way with the government and the government bowed to that pressure.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Mr. Speaker, I know we are running out of time, but I cannot stand by when threats such as these are made. I must say these threats that we would have to pay an additional $3,000 in insurance are somewhat ludicrous when we are talking about the environment. Quite frankly, a great environmentalist like the hon. member for Davenport should not even mention things like that.
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Davenport, because I think he has done some excellent work on our committee, but if it is a matter of politics, and I have a feeling this is strictly political, a conflict between the industry and the auto makers. It involves Ethyl Canada and the new ethanol plants in which the minister is about to invest $70 million. A number of levels are involved here, and it is very political.
Now, I want to see this matter discussed at the environmental level, starting today, and for heaven's sake, let us get serious and start considering the environment, once and for all. The government got rid of the Green Plan, and in its stead, we got a commissioner for the environment. The government eliminated a number of things that were very important for the environment.
We should stop digging in our heels about a matter that is purely political. I would like to see this referred to committee, with as many witnesses as possible, so that we can get a really clear picture of what is at stake here. Right now, the amount of lobbying going on is incredible. I have never seen this with other bills, especially not on the environment.
I think the environment comes first. I hope all members in this House who work on environmental issues will get together and make an environmental decision, not a political one just because the minister has decided to invest in a certain issue.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc is quite right: We have to depoliticize the whole process and get it back on sound technical grounds. That is what the opposition in unity is calling for.
On who should pay for the independent review, the two conflicting positions should equally pay for the independent review.
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries; and of the amendment.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders
The Speaker
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North relating to Senate amendments to Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the division on Bill S-7 and Bill C-295 be taken after the other votes we will be proceeding with; in other words that they be taken out of sequence and at the completion of other votes.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders
The Speaker
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders
The Speaker
I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of Bill C-89, an act to provide for the continuance of the Canadian National Railway Company under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares of the company to the public, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage on Bill C-89, an act to provide for the continuance of the Canadian National Railway Company under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares of the company to the public.
We will now vote on Group No. 1. The first question is on Motion No. 4.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that all members of Parliament who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House and in the following manner. Liberal MPs will be voting nay.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members will vote no, except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, the NDP will vote yes, except for those who wish to vote otherwise.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, in an effort to co-operate and perhaps accelerate things here, you might find unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 17. For Motions Nos. 14 and 15 you might find that same consent, but I understand that New Democratic Party members might be voting otherwise on Motions Nos. 14 and 15.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Agreed.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, we would give unanimous consent to applying the vote just taken to Motions 8, 9, 10 and 17. On Motions Nos. 14 and 15 the NDP votes no. On Motion No. 11 we vote yes.
Ray Speaker Reform Lethbridge, AB
I declare Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 lost.
We have it all straightened out. The only thing we had not talked about in the last series was Motion No. 11. The question is on Motion No. 11.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for applying the result of the vote just taken on the previous motion to the motion now before the House. Members of the Liberal Party will vote against Motion No. 11.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Bloc Quebecois members will vote in favour of the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote yea, with the exception of members who wish to vote otherwise.