Debates of Oct. 30th, 1996

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

It being after 5.30 o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from June 20, 1996, consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

The Senate

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the motion submitted by my colleague, the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, should be rejected.

However, I will not criticize it too harshly because I would not want to curtail the new enthusiasm of the member for the renewal of our federation. I would like to tell the member that, even tough I cannot approve the substance of the motion, I agree wholeheartedly with the intention behind it.

I can easily understand why my colleague from the official opposition believes it is worthwhile to renew the country. I am happy that he would make such efforts to represent the majority of Quebecers who support the renewal of our federation.

A poll conducted last March for CBC and Radio-Canada showed that 60 per cent of Quebecers believe that premier Bouchard should work hand in hand with the federal government and the other provinces towards renewing the federation.

Why is it that a majority of Quebecers believe that Canada is worth renewing? Because, year after year, the United Nations rank Canada as the first country in the world as far as quality of life is concerned and fifth among advanced countries for per capita income.

For the past 30 years, from 1960 to 1990, Canada has been second among the G-7 countries in the area of economic growth.

For three years now, Canada has had the second lowest inflation rate among the G-7 countries. Our inflation rate is lower than those of France, Germany and the United States.

Since the election of the Liberal government in 1993, the overall unemployment rate has decreased and at least 650,000 new jobs have been created.

The GDP shows that Canada's financial situation is improving more rapidly than that of other G-7 countries. In 1997, Canada will have the lowest total deficit to GDP ratio of all the G-7 countries. It will be lower than the one in France, in the United States and in Germany.

Canada has the reputation internationally of being a tolerant and open country, which makes all of us very proud. Canadians are recognized all over the world for their commitment toward the values of justice, compassion and solidarity.

As the French Minister of Culture indicated last May: "Canada is an example of successful answers to questions that are being asked in each of our societies".

However, I do not mean by that that we should be complacent, far from it. In response to the desire expressed by Quebecers and other Canadians for the renewal and modernization of the federation, the Government of Canada has undertaken a wide series of initiatives. These initiatives will ensure us that the federal system will operate at its full capacity, thus allowing us to face the future challenges with much confidence.

We have a firm renewal plan for the country and we are on the right track regarding our plans.

Within the Liberal plan for the renewal of the federation, we are working toward a more effective balance of roles and responsibilities between the federal government and the provinces. At the premiers' meeting last June, our initiatives were well received by the great majority of provincial premiers and, in some cases, they were approved unanimously. Provincial premiers took action to follow up on these initiatives during the annual conference of provincial premiers in Jasper.

We proposed to transfer the responsibility of all active employment measures funded by the employment insurance fund to the provinces, which, in many cases, want a greater control over manpower development. This provides the provinces the opportunity to manage the some $2 billion that the federal government spends each year on employment assistance measures. This means that, if they so wish, the provinces will be free to implement their own programs in areas such as wage subsidies, job counselling and placement.

Our government is also willing to withdraw from mining and forestry development, thus allowing the provinces to develop their own programs in these sectors of activity, according to their priorities and to local needs. We also propose to transfer the administrative authority over social housing to the provinces, as well as the $1.9 billion used to fund this sector.

Last May, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, including the Quebec Minister, decided to work toward a detailed multilateral umbrella agreement between the government of Canada and the provincial ministers of the environment. That agreement was to ensure a healthier environment for Canadians. A better clarification of the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved would help to reduce the operational costs of the private sector. Lower costs for the companies would not only ensure better protection for our environment, but would also mean more money for these companies to create jobs.

We are not only focusing on national issues. We are also trying to meet the specific needs of each and every one of the provinces.

For instance, in the weeks following the conference of the first ministers, the federal government and the government of British Columbia signed an agreement on a very important issue for many residents of that province. Both governments agreed to a detailed bilateral review of the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments in the management of the Pacific salmon fishery. Recently, the premier of British Columbia said that significant progress had been made and that the Prime Minister of Canada was to be praised for his contribution to this issue.

All the initiatives I mentioned stem from our willingness to build a much more efficient federation. However, efficiency cannot in itself renew our federation. A modern federation needs to be flexible. And I am glad to say that we have also made progress in that direction.

The Canada health and social transfer is a good example. Provinces used to receive federal transfers for social assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan and funding for health and post-secondary education under Established Programs Financing. These programs were subject to complex rules that determined, for example, which expenditures were eligible to a share of public assistance. In summary, the whole system was quite cumbersome.

This is why, last April, the federal government replaced these two different types of transfer by a block fund called the Canada health and social transfer.

This fund will give more leeway to provinces in the design and implementation of their social programs.

Moreover, we have made a commitment to provide stable and predictable financing into the next century. The new transfer will help provinces plan health, welfare, and post-secondary education in an orderly fashion.

We are making these moves to renew the Canadian federation in order to meet the expectations of the vast majority of Quebecers and other Canadians who want their federal, provincial and local governments to work in a spirit of co-operation to meet the challenges of the next century.

With these comments, I congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup on his efforts to renew our federation. I hope his attitude will prove contagious with his colleagues in the official opposition.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to address you in the chair this afternoon, sir. I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion No. 221 put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

As I travel throughout my constituency and performing my duties as a member in other parts of the country, I am amazed at how distrustful and concerned people are at the way politics are being carried out. One of the popular topics of discussion is integrity. People are determined that their leaders and their institutions be responsive to their needs and to their wishes. Presently Canadians are very distrustful. There is an air of cynicism that I find disheartening. People put little or no faith in the promises of politicians or the activities of political institutions.

Every time an election comes around so do the politicians, making all kinds of promises that are sure to be broken when no longer convenient. That is the attitude that people express. People want their leaders and their political institutions to represent themselves accurately and to be accountable to the people they represent.

That is why the debate today on the Senate is such an important one. The Senate is a political institution that has for far too long neglected the needs and the interests of Canadians. It is an institution that is accountable to political parties, nothing else and no one else. That must change. Our country needs servants of the people, not servants of political parties.

The solution to the Senate accountability problem is not Senate abolition. The solution is Senate reform. For this reason, the Reform Party and I cannot support Motion No. 221, although we understand the frustration that motivates the presentation of this motion.

Before I discuss the reason Reform cannot support this motion, let me give a brief background, if I may, about the Senate. Every large nation, such as Canada, with an uneven population distribution, must find a way to balance and effectively represent the interests of both the thinly populated and the heavily populated regions of the country in national decision making. To meet this challenge, the architects of Canada chose the classic federal system of government, that is, they established two levels of government, one national and the other provincial, with a division of powers between the two.

A democratic bicameral national Parliament was also formed in which the composition of the lower house, the House of Commons, is based on representation by population. The composition of the upper house, the Senate, is based on representation by region. Legislative proposals do not become law until they are approved by both houses.

The purpose of the Senate is to represent the regions of the country, especially those sparsely populated regions which have fewer seats in the House of Commons than the more heavily populated regions such as southern Ontario and southern Quebec. Therefore if the Senate were abolished there would be absolutely no way of safeguarding the interests of the thinly populated areas of the country. That is the major reason that we cannot support Motion No. 221.

I know the argument will be raised that the Senate does not represent the interests of the regions as it now stands anyway, so let us just abolish the Senate. I understand that frustration. The people who argue this point are absolutely correct about one thing: the status quo is not good enough.

The Senate exists today as an ineffective and unaccountable institution. It does not balance the interests of the thinly populated resource producing regions of the country such as the west, central and northern B.C., the north, Atlantic Canada, rural and northern Ontario and Quebec. It does not balance these areas with those heavily populated regions of southern Ontario and southern Quebec.

There are two reasons for the Senate's ineffectiveness and lack of accountability. First, the Senate is undemocratic. Its members are appointed by the Prime Minister and it has become the patronage heaven for old and tired politicians and political fundraisers. Senators are accountable to no one except their political party.

Second, the Senate is regionally unbalanced. That is, almost 50 per cent of senators come from the already more heavily populated regions of the country. How with our present Senate can the thinly populated areas of Canada like rural British Columbia have balanced representation with Ontario and Quebec? It is impossible.

We have seen over the years many examples where decisions have been made by Parliament that have weighed heavily in favour of central Canada. Last year the federal government secured parliamentary approval for Bill C-68 on universal gun registration and the distinct society clause for Quebec. In the 1980s the national energy program, the Meech Lake constitutional proposals, official languages legislation and the CF-18 decision all received parliamentary approval. These policies and decisions completely ignored

the interests and desires of many Canadians living in the thinly populated regions of Canada.

The Senate is an ineffective body. However, as I mentioned a moment ago, the solution to the Senate's ineffectiveness is not abolition. Abolishing the Senate would leave no means of balancing and effectively representing the interests of both the thinly populated and the heavily populated regions of the country in the national decision making process.

Most important, however, abolition of the Senate is not what Canadians want. I sent out a questionnaire in my riding earlier this year about the Senate. I asked people whether all future senators should be elected before being appointed by the Prime Minister. Eighty-four per cent of those who responded said yes. Let me read some of the comments which accompanied these responses.

A lady from Eagle Creek, British Columbia wrote: "The Senate should be much more regional in its make-up". A person from Clinton, British Columbia wrote: "The Senate has been stacked with people used to further the agenda of the government of the day, which has not always been good for the country".

A man from Williams Lake, British Columbia wrote: "The Senate has proven to be ineffective". Another person from Williams Lake wrote: "An elected Senate would mean that. The Senate vote would be a truer vote than the one taken by the Prime Minister's cronies".

A couple from the 106 Mile Ranch in British Columbia wrote: "Stop political patronage". A man from 100 Mile House, B.C., wrote: "I feel that an elected, more equal, more effective Senate would be a good thing".

The Reform Party of Canada has been listening to these voices and the voices of many other Canadians who want their political leaders and institutions to be more accountable, who want the Senate to truly represent regional interests and who want the Senate reformed, not abolished.

The Reform Party of Canada has developed a plan to help Canadians. This plan is detailed in our fresh start program. It is called a fresh start guarantee. This guarantee will give Canadians the tools to ensure that politicians and political institutions will be accountable to the Canadian people. These tools include recall, freer votes, referendums and citizens' initiatives. Most important, our fresh start guarantee will include a commitment to achieve Senate reform, not Senate abolition.

Senate reform means a triple-E Senate, a Senate that is elected with equal representation per province and with effective power to

represent regional interests. To my Liberal colleagues, the Prime Minister even supports the triple-E Senate reform. He said in his speech to the House of Commons in 1991: "To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and in the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equal".

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, let me take this occasion to say how happy I am to see you in your place.

I propose that Motion No. 221, tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, be rejected for a number of reasons. However, let me say how pleased I am that by proposing an amendment to this fine institution the Bloc is recognizing the legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution.

Opening up the constitutional debate at this time, even for the purpose of abolishing the Senate, is far removed from the concerns and aspirations of ordinary Canadians. Indeed it is unfortunate that the Bloc is ignoring the real needs of its constituents who are looking for jobs, who want to achieve a decent standard of living, who are concerned about the future of social programs and who want their governments to work together constructively.

On this side of the House we firmly believe that job creation, economic and social development should be the top priorities of all elected members. They are the top priorities of Canadians.

Since the Liberals were elected we have kept our commitment to work toward the creation of a climate for opportunity for Canadians. We have put forward tangible measures to help make government more efficient, renew the federation, keep the country united and forge new partnerships with the provinces. All Canadians, including Quebecers, want change. They want Canada to work better. They want the different orders of government to be more efficient and to fulfil their respective roles more effectively. Much of it can be done without constitutional amendment.

Accordingly, the government has made a commitment to modernize the federation step by step, focusing on co-operation with the provinces and territories to serve Canadians better. Canadians have said they want to see government roles and responsibilities clarified, and the government has responded. We are withdrawing from areas of activity that are more appropriately the responsibility of the provinces or the private sector, forestry, mining development, recreation and some aspects of transport.

In the area of labour market training the government submitted a proposal to the provinces in May and this enables them to takeover responsibility for active employment assistance measures. The provinces can therefore, if they wish, manage the approximately $1.9 billion per year the federal government currently spends on active employment assistance measures and implement their own programs such as wage subsidies, income supplements, self-employment assistance and private sector job creation partnerships, as well as many other labour services such as screening and job counselling.

The framework we are putting in place will provide a maximum flexibility for the provinces, making it possible to meet local and regional needs more effectively.

At this June's first ministers meeting, new avenues for partnership with the provinces were explored, including initiatives in the fields of social housing, freshwater fish habitat and environmental management.

In the area of social housing, negotiations have started with the provinces including Quebec on the orderly transfer of social housing management and the billions in grants that go with it.

In the sector of freshwater fish habitat, the federal government tabled a bill in the House of Commons on October 3 to amend the Fisheries Act. This bill will substantially modernize and update the legal framework for fisheries, conservation and habitat management in Canada. It will allow industry, including fisher people, to participate directly in fisheries management through partnership agreements. Discussions are under way with interested provinces.

With respect to the environment, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment adopted a work plan on May 31 which was approved by the first ministers meeting on June 20 and 21 to strengthen co-operation and eliminate duplication while maintaining the highest standards. Progress was made on developing a framework agreement, setting out principles and objectives for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. Progress was also made on negotiating two subsidiary agreements on effective inspection and high environmental standards.

With the Canada health and social transfer we have also ensured that the principles of the Canada Health Act will be respected throughout the country. In this way we will ensure the universality of health insurance and social programs in line with our commitments and the values that Canadians cherish.

The government has also for the first time in history made a commitment to limit its spending power. We have said that we will no longer use that power to establish new, cost shared programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces. Provinces which do not wish to participate but which nevertheless choose to implement a comparable program will be compensated.

The Bloc should acknowledge that our plans for renewal are serious, concrete and affect the day to day realities of all Canadians including those it represents.

A bill has been tabled to bring all food inspection services, comprising 4,500 employees, under one body. This move is yet another step toward working more effectively with provincial agencies to set up a co-operative Canada-wide food inspection system that will lessen the regulatory burden on the food industry.

Discussions are continuing with those provinces interested in this project and in other federal-provincial joint initiatives such as a national revenue collection body and a national securities commission.

All our initiatives will help eliminate overlap and duplication, thus yielding substantial savings and more efficient services for Canadians.

Canadians from coast to coast want their government to make the country work better. They want their governments to put their public finances in order, improve economic growth and bring about an economic climate conducive to job creation. In fact, I am surprised to see that Bloc, in tabling this motion, is out of touch with the concerns of the very people it represents.

For its part, this government is already working closely with the provinces and all its social and economic partners to explore new options and find new ways to do things so as to serve Canadians better and respond to their immediate concerns.

I therefore consider the motion tabled today by the hon. member from Rivière-du-Loup to be inappropriate. For that reason, I call on the House to reject it.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. But first, allow me to congratulate you on your election to your position. I know that it was arduous but, nevertheless, I think the majority of the members of the House have recognized your qualifications, and I am happy to join with my colleagues in wishing you every success in your new duties.

That being said, I repeat that I am pleased to take part in this debate. I know this issue is of great interest to you, Mr. Speaker, since, together with some of my colleagues, I have already had the opportunity to debate with you in this House the appropriateness of maintaining the institution we call the other place, the Senate.

I listened very carefully to the remarks made by some colleagues from the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, whose remarks I will get back to later, and the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury. Incidentally, in the case of my hon. colleague for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, with all due respect I have for him in certain circumstances, if a rule of relevance applied in these debates, I think you would have interrupted him very early in his speech to call him to order because, from what I understood of his remarks, except for blaming the Bloc for putting forward the motion that is before the House, he confined himself to masking the facts with regard to the reform of our institutions, the reform of federalism.

He set out a series of measures that, according to him, would have the advantage of improving the efficectiveness of our federation. The reality is altogether different.

However, I want to get back to the issue we are debating now, the motion put forward by my hon. colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup that, in essence, asks for the abolition, the end of the Senate. First I want to congratulate my colleague on this initiative, since, contrary to what our Liberal friends may suggest, it answers an often repeated wish by all our fellow citizens in Quebec, for sure, but also in the whole country.

When we talk to people back in our ridings, there are tens and hundreds who ask us to demand that the Senate simply be abolished. Why? For several reasons.

First, the Senate's provincial counterparts-everybody remembers the legislative councils that existed in each and every province with basically the same role as the Senate-the legislative councils were abolished one after the other in all the Canadian provinces. The legislative council was abolished in Quebec in the late 1960s.

What happened after the legislative councils were abolished in the provinces? There was no revolution, at least not in Quebec. Nobody started fights on buses or got in a state because the legislative council had been abolished. On the contrary, nobody, maybe with the exception of the members of these legislative councils and their entourage, realized in the end that these institutions had disappeared. We can also question the usefulness of that institution of the Senate.

If we were to go back to the time when the Liberal members were in opposition and read their speeches, we would certainly find that some of them shared our point of view on the usefulness or lack thereof of the Senate.

In the last years, the auditor general criticized repeatedly the workings of the Senate. He criticized the fact that some funds go to the maintenance of this institution.

Last May, I rose to speak on a motion by one of my colleagues who criticized the use of tens of millions of dollars to this end. Year in and year out, the institution of the Senate has a budget of over $40 million.

There are now in our society people who cannot afford to feed their children or clothe them for school or other activities. Every-

day in Montreal, in all of Quebec's and Canada's major cities and even in the smallest ones, we see people having to go to food banks, to organizations which will feed them at least a minimum. Everyone acknowledges that the economic situation we are living in at the present time is a difficult one.

This very morning in Quebec, as we speak, yesterday rather, marked the opening of a summit bringing together all those involved in the socio-economic sector in Quebec. They will be spending three days discussing how to improve the situation of all of our fellow citizens, particularly those who are the least well off, in order to find ways of getting them jobs, in order to provide them with quality government services. During this exercise, which is being held in Quebec right now, but could be held anywhere in Canada, efforts will also be made to find ways of doing less harm to the disadvantaged during the process of putting our public finances on a better footing.

Meanwhile, the unemployed and people on welfare are being asked to tighten their belts even more so that we can have a zero deficit, but when these good people come home at night and watch television, when they watch the newscast, they will realize that, at the federal level, we are maintaining an institution that although there are some senators who are competent and have experienced, and are trying to do a good job for our country, nevertheless, the most vulnerable in our society who watch this debate will realize that we are maintaining an institution which the vast majority of the population feels is completely useless.

So the hon. member's motion is a very important one. And when we in the Bloc Quebecois ask for the abolition of the Senate, we do not want to renew federalism, we do not want to get involved in a process to renew the federation, we are simply making the point that money are spent on this institution could be better spent elsewhere.

That is what we are saying to the federal government. Instead of cutting payments to the most vulnerable in our society, as we have seen in the last three budgets of the Minister of Finance who, year after year, has cut unemployment insurance and transfer payments to the provinces for welfare, post-secondary education and health care, we say again to this government: clean up your act and do something about your own institutions.

So the motion moved by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is a piece of advice to the government on how to save money, and they can do that by abolishing the Senate. Take this money and let it be used to help the people who need it most in our society. That is how we should understand my colleague's motion.

If hon. members would set aside partisan considerations and go to their ridings and listen to their constituents, they would hear from them, day after day and week after week, that this motion makes sense. I sincerely hope that the government will take this into consideration before the next election.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair. It is a much deserved appointment and I know you will serve this House and the people of Canada very well.

Canadians have mixed feelings about the Senate. There are three attitudes: those who feel it should be abolished; others who say no, it should be maintained but elected; still others who are happy with the status quo.

Let me remind everyone that this House cannot simply act unilaterally to abolish the Senate. That would require a very complex series of constitutional negotiations involving the provinces and could only be affected through an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore Motion M-221, which proposes that the government should abolish the Senate, is not something that we can do and it should be rejected by the House.

I find myself wondering how many letters the members of the Bloc have received from their constituents recently demanding that they spend their time pushing for the abolition of the Senate. Are the cafes on Quebec's Grande-Allée or Montreal's rue St. Laurent abuzz with discussions on the future of the upper Chamber? I think not.

I suspect that if the members sitting opposite to me listened to their constituents with a little more care they would find that the people in their ridings are much more interested in other issues: economic growth, job creation, government deficits, protecting our social programs and medicare, and relaunching the economy of Montreal to name a few.

Their constituents would be pleased to know that the Liberal government shares these concerns, even if their elected members in the official opposition have become somewhat out of touch.

Since elected, the federal government has been getting its fiscal house in order. During the election in 1993 it was clear that this was a major concern for all Canadians. We responded.

According to forecasts the objective for 1997-98 of reducing the deficit to $17 billion or 2 per cent of GDP will be met, down $25 billion from 1993-94 when the deficit we inherited represented 6 per cent of GDP.

Thanks in large part to the measures taken by the federal government to put public finances in order, interest rates have dropped 17 times in the last 17 months. Lower interest rates mean that more benefits will be generated than any program or tax cut could possibly bring in. For ordinary Canadians, this means that

someone renewing a $100,000 one-year mortgage will save over $3,000 a year. In addition, the lower interest rates have been a big help to the provinces in reaching their deficit reduction objectives. Between January 1995 and June 1996 the provinces saved $1.3 billion in debt servicing charges. Quebec alone saved some $625 million.

The Liberal government knows that Canadians want to work. That is why we have been working so hard with our provincial partners to promote a climate favourable for job creation. Our efforts I am pleased to say have met with success.

Certainly there is more to be done. We all know that. But no less than 650,000 new jobs have been created in the Canadian economy since the government took office. Unemployment is under 10 per cent for the first time in half a decade. These are achievements of which all Canadians can feel proud.

Internationally Canada's reputation as a country with low inflation is beginning to attract notice. In December 1993 the federal government and the Bank of Canada set a target to keep inflation between 1 and 3 per cent through the end of 1998 and we are on target.

Having a good international reputation like this is vital for Canada's economy and that of the provinces.

In recent years, exports have been the main engine of the economic growth necessary to decrease our unemployment levels even further. An important part of our strategy for promoting exports has been our Team Canada trade missions.

Their value is widely appreciated. It is certainly hoped that all 10 provincial premiers this time will be accompanying Canada's Prime Minister and a large delegation of Canadian business people on the next mission to Korea, Thailand and the Philippines.

During the missions to date, Canadian businesses have announced 369 business deals worth some $20 billion. Furthermore, Canadians have had the opportunity to see what the federal government, the provincial governments and the private sector can achieve when working in a spirit of co-operation.

Canadians want their country to work like this. They want their governments to work together efficiently and effectively to respond to their concrete everyday needs. I hear this all the time: "Why do the governments of Canada not work more effectively together?"

With the leadership this Prime Minister and this government have brought to bear on this situation, that is exactly what we are starting to see, and it is high time.

This motion under consideration today does not address the real, everyday fundamental concerns of Canadians, including those Canadians in Quebec, their economic concerns. It certainly does not address the concerns of the member's constituents. Therefore, with respect, I cannot support the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

It being 6.46 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

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 (Mr. Milliken)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

(Amendment negatived.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The next question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

(Motion negatived.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

It being 6.47 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)