Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1997

Petitions

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present three petitions today.

The first petition ask parliament to urge the government to upgrade the national highway system in conjunction with the provinces.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks parliament to clarify the Criminal Code to ensure that public displays of nudity cannot be considered an infringement of an individual's freedom of expression.

The third one asks parliament to enact legislation to prevent women from appearing topless in public.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Manitoba, asking that Bill C-2 be rescinded.

It imposes massive CPP premium hikes while reducing benefits, changes the CPP financial arrangement to provide a payoff for Bay Street brokers and bankers, ultimately sends Canadian investment dollars out the country, and reduces employment.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition signed by nearly 500 constituents from Appin, Melbourne, Mount Brydges, Glencoe, Parkhill and Strathroy after a series of break-ins and auto thefts in their communities.

The petitioners urge the government to lower the age limit for young offenders, to strengthen the penalties and to publish the names of convicted young offenders in their local newspapers.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with my colleagues from Manitoba who have spoken to the matter this afternoon, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on the Canada pension plan.

It is signed by a number of people from the prairie region who are interested in supporting a publicly administered universal pension plan which ensures that all Canadians, not just the wealthy, can look forward to a secure retirement.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 23 will be answered today .[Text]

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

With regard to the recent reopening of the Cassiar asbestos mine in British Columbia, can the government (a) state what its involvement was; (b) indicate how much the government contributed; (c) indicate which government programs were used; (d) indicate the amounts contributed under each program; (e) specify the conditions of any loan or loans, including the interest rate and duration; and (f) indicate which departments were involved in this reopening?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of National Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

The Cassiar asbestos mine in British Columbia has not been reopened. The project mentioned is in fact a pilot project to reprocess waste from the old mine.

The Cassiar pilot project went into service on October 19, 1997 and is producing only for test purposes. To date, there has been no industrial production.

The pilot project is financed entirely by the private sector. Natural Resources Canada has not been involved in any way in the opening of the Cassiar pilot plant.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Just before we grant leave for all questions to stand, could the parliamentary secretary explain why it is taking so long to get an answer to Question No. 14? The question was tabled on September 23, which means it is well beyond the 45 days the rules allow for the government to reply.

The question seeks to find out whether the government has honoured the commitment made by the former minister of health a year ago to spend $10 million on education and other programs to reduce youth smoking. I am concerned at the delay in making this information public and wonder if my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, could undertake to ensure that the response is quickly forthcoming.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have some information on the progress of questions which are as yet unanswered. I would be glad to see if in fact I can give the member opposite some information immediately.

Failing that, I will follow up on this question and see that it is answered as quickly as possible.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Canada Marine Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are 20 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-9.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 12.

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 4, 10, 11 and 20.

Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 5 to 9 and 13 to 17.

Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 18 and 19.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern during the time of voting.

I should advise hon. members and draw to their attention the fact that the French text of Motion No. 13, as printed in the Notice Paper, is incorrect. A corrected version is available at the table.

The chief government whip on a point of order.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for an order of the House that would deem all amendments which have been found in order at the report stage of Bill C-9 to have been read by the Chair and to have been duly moved and seconded, and to further provide that when there is no further debate the amendments will be deemed to have been put and a recorded division requested.

In any case, no later than 5.30 p.m. today all questions necessary to complete the report stage will be deemed to have been put, divisions requested and deferred until the conclusion of the consideration of Government Orders tomorrow.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had discussions with my colleagues in all parties opposite and I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to waive notice and introduce a technical amendment as follows:

That Bill C-9 be amended by replacing line 34 on page 16 with the following: “tions made under paragraph 27(1)(e)”.

I will be making copies of this technical amendment available at the table immediately. I thank in advance members opposite for their co-operation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the proposal, without agreement on the amendment at the moment. Can the hon. member move it and include it in the motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and can the amendment be the subject of debate this afternoon with the other amendments proposed?