House of Commons Hansard #74 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pension.

Topics

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB

It is not in this bill.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Yes, it is in the bill. My colleague is saying it is not in the bill. It has been in the bill and that part of the legislation has not changed. That part of the legislation is still the same as when it was amended back in 1994-95. A member of parliament cannot collect a pension until that member reaches the age of 55.

Now the question to ask my colleagues on the opposition side is whether or not they think it is fair for a member of the House to serve for 15 years, for example, and not be able to collect 40% of his or her pension if that member is 55 or 56 years of age. I am sure they would agree that is a fair thing to do.

Also, the component of this debate that has been missing is the whole tax free element for members of parliament. This whole notion has been eliminated altogether. Therefore, finally, members of parliament would be taxed like other members of the community. We would pay taxes based on the total amount we earn as a Speaker or as a member of the opposition or a member of the government. We would have the transparency that our constituents, the taxpayers, want us to provide them with. We would say this is how much we earn and this is the amount of tax we pay.

That leaves me with one issue. That is the issue of the amount. Frankly, I think of my colleagues, especially the ones who come from the west or those who come from far east, who travel in some cases for 14 hours and languish at airports collecting dust for three or four hours. If they miss a plane, they might end up waiting there for an extra six or seven hours and miss all of their constituency meetings, or if they have a family engagement, that will go down the tube. I want any one of them to stand up and tell me whether or not it is fair to say that we should have a compensation package that is fair and equitable in order to allow that member of parliament to be compensated fairly. What is fair?

I want to agree with my colleague who spoke a little earlier. Yes, there are members of parliament who work their hearts out, day in and day out, who attend every single committee meeting, who speak on issues, who participate in communities, who work very hard and put in 70 to 75 hours per week. There are others who probably do not work more than five or six or ten or twelve hours a week. In an ideal world, one might wonder whether those two groups should be receiving the same amount of pay. I do not know. At the end of the day their constituents will decide whether or not they want to re-elect a member of parliament who is not working on their behalf in the House of Commons.

I think it would be highly unfair for the government to propose legislation whereby there would be four or five different classes of members of parliament, where those who put in 80 hours would receive $131,000 and those who work 20 hours would receive less and so on. We cannot do that. The issue here is not whether one member of parliament is working as hard as another one. Frankly, some of our colleagues probably do not deserve a raise, do not deserve to be paid at all and do not even deserve to be in the House of Commons, period. However, who are we to pass that judgment in a democracy when at the end of the day it is the people who decide who their elected representative is?

I would say in all fairness that what the government has proposed before the House of Commons is a fair and equitable package. There have been a number of commissions that on a regular basis have proposed to the House of Commons a package that would reform the system.

There is a gentleman who was once on the opposition side. His name is Jim Silye. You probably recall him, Mr. Speaker. He is now in Alberta. I think he was the whip of the Reform Party. He said at the time he was here that if the government were to bring in a package that would eliminate the tax free allowance and would propose $140,000 or $150,000 his party would support it.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Bertrand Liberal Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC

It was $150,000.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, it was $150,000, my colleague has stated. He said he would support it.

The government has proposed a package of $131,000 absolutely taxable, whereby it has removed this whole notion of the tax free allowance, has removed the notion of members of parliament voting on their own salaries, has changed the pension from 4% to 3% and has maintained 55 years in terms of the ability of a member of parliament to receive his or her compensation. To that extent, this is a fair package. I call on my colleagues to put all partisanship aside and support the legislation so it can go through.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West, National Defence; the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, Immigration.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Gouk Canadian Alliance Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are four points to this bill. In the course of debate a couple of others have been brought in.

I would like to deal with those others first, one of those being the opt in clause. In my opinion the opt in clause is really not part of the bill. It has nothing to do with the legislation, the salary, the pension, the transparency or anything else. It is nothing more than the pure gamesmanship that is displayed in the House from time to time, not only by the government but by many people in the House. It should basically be discarded as if it were not there. The second thing I have a problem with is not the legislation itself, but rather the speed with which the legislation was brought in.

I have difficulty with one the four parts of the bill that deals with pensions. I have been fighting for years for pension reform. I attempted to bring in a private member's bill for genuine consideration by all members. I also attempted to bring in an amendment, but because of the short timeline and its complexity it was impossible to put into an acceptable form. Consequently my amendment, as drafted with the help of legislative counsel, was ruled out of order. Even if it had been in order, because of the speed the bill went through committee of the whole consideration we would not have reached my amendment in any case.

The bill has four distinctive parts and that is what we need to look at. The first one deals with transparency, the elimination of the non-taxable portion of an MP's pay. That is something we have been fighting for years.

After the 1997 election the government virtually ignored the recommendations of the Blais commission. It is nice to see this time, with a couple of exceptions or modifications, it is following what the report said. It would have been better had it done that in 1997.

The bill is to eliminate the non-taxable amount and gross it up so that we would end up with what is supposed to be the same pay. I will get to that point in a moment because it is not.

It also provides outside linkage for increases in the future so that MPs never again get into what is tantamount to a conflict of interest in trying to deal with their own remuneration, pensions and other benefits inside the House. It takes it out of our hands and hopefully it will remain out of our hands.

We could argue all day on what it should have been linked to, whether it should have been linked to judges as it was or whether it should have been linked to the federal service at large. That is an amendment I certainly would have supported. At least it was not linked to something that has no relevance to the House whatsoever, such as airline pilots, doctors or something of that nature, because it happened to suit somebody's notion of how to get a raise.

Then we get to the raise itself. Here is an area where no one was doing their homework. According to the Debates and the newspapers we are talking about a 20% increase. That is based on the assumption that $109,500 is the direct grossed up equivalent of what we were getting before the bill comes into effect. That is not the case.

I do not know who came up with that figure or how they arrived at it, but it does not take a whole lot of homework to check it out. I phoned a tax accountant in my province of British Columbia who went through the tax tables and worked it out. The balanced amount is not $109,500 but $115,100. That means that the raise is not 20% but about 14%.

It will vary a little bit from province to province. The raise is a bit more in Alberta, a bit less in Saskatchewan, and in Quebec taxes are higher still so the raise is even less than 14%.

During the parts of the debate that I heard no one seemed to raise a fact that appeared in one of the papers I was reading today which said that we have had a 2% raise every year for the past many years. The truth of the matter is that over the past 10 years we have had an aggregate total of a 6% increase, which is far behind any other sector including the public sector.

I do not believe personally that the pay raise is out line. Backdating it to January is a little inflammatory, kind of like when the postal strike was settled by legislating a settlement that was less than the employer had offered. It was one of those unnecessary movements on the part of the government that only caused to inflame feelings unnecessarily.

That brings me to the fourth and the only part of the bill to which I object dealing with the pension. The pension amount would simply go up because the pay goes up. The intent of the recommendations made by the commission was that it should go up exactly in line with the amount we were already getting. Other than the raise there would be no gain or no loss. Keeping it at 3% gives us a tremendous gain.

The amendment I wished to put forward and my private member's bill presently before the House at first reading say that after getting rid of the non-taxable grossing up, as the bill has done, the pension of members of Parliament should be eliminated in its entirety. Instead all members should be placed in the federal public superannuation program, the same as all other public servants.

That would provide a lot of benefits for MPs without it being a cost factor to Canadians. It would allow newly elected MPs who previously worked in government at either the federal, provincial or municipal level, crown corporations, the RCMP, the military and many private corporations that have transfer agreements with the federal program, to transfer their pension and carry on. It would also allow members who left this place and then worked for one of those areas to take their pension with them.

When we leave this place our pension is on hold until we turn 55. If someone ends up out of service in their early forties their pension is based on their salary. By the time they reach 55, it is possibly based on a salary from as much as 15 years before. It is better to carry the pension with them.

I do not know what I will do when it comes time to vote on the bill tonight because part of our policy and our principles is that MPs should not be voting on their pay. Notwithstanding the fact that the party's policy states that, I have a greater problem with the fact that voting on this bill places my colleagues and I in a clear conflict of interest.

I voted for the bill at second reading because I wanted to get it to committee of the whole stage where it could be amended. It has gone through that stage without any amendment. I did not vote on it at committee of the whole stage. I may very well not vote on it intentionally when it comes up for a vote tonight.

I say for the record so there is no misunderstanding that I do not intend to opt out of the pay. I earn what I earn in this place and I work as hard as other members. Any member who takes an arbitrary stand to turn it down is being foolish. He or she would be trying to make a point that I guarantee will be lost on the public.

Bill C-28 is a controversial bill. At least we will be able to put it to rest. Hopefully we are now balanced and never again will this type of legislation come to the House.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would love to say it is a pleasure to rise today to address the bill, but it is not a pleasure because it is a very difficult issue for MPs.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act. I want to address the general issue of the worth and value of MPs. I recognize that this issue is a controversial one. It is truly a political hot potato. That is why I want to address it as reasonably and as sensitively as I can.

I thank the commissioners for their report. I think they did a good job. They held as many hearings as possible with Canadians. They tried to make their report as fair as possible. I thank Ed Lumley, Jake Epp and Huguette Labelle for their service and for their good recommendations.

The first good recommendation they made was to make our salary completely transparent by rolling the tax free expense allowance into a salary and thus calling it what it is. Basically it has become a de facto salary over time. It also makes MPs and lawmakers subject to the same tax laws as Canadians, a fundamental principle that should be followed in every democracy.

They recommended that the pension contribution rates be lowered to 2.5%. This was a step in the right direction because it would move us closer to private sector standards. They also recommended a 20% pay raise, obviously the most controversial issue in the House.

This raises the question of what MPs are worth. I welcome this discussion as should all members in the House. However the question is very difficult because of the uniqueness of our role. What is an MP worth? Should we in the House be deciding what we are worth?

I will be the first to recognize that MPs from all parties do work hard and deserve fair compensation. Many who serve on committees do their homework. They come prepared and they do background research. They also serve their constituents well and are motivated by genuine interest. However that is not the point because many Canadians work hard. Many Canadians can point to putting in long hours, spending time away from their families, et cetera.

It is the responsibility of the position that basically determines what an MP is worth and the salary should be based on this. It should not be MPs in this House who determine what their salaries should be.

The other aspect is the opt in provision, which was not included in the report but which is included in the bill. This to me is not good public policy and not good lawmaking. It puts lawmakers in such a box that people who disagree with the process cannot stand up and voice their concern and displeasure with the process. They are forced to make a choice as to whether they want to opt in or not. We are boxed in. It separates us into two categories and that is just not fair.

We all vote on bills in this House that we disagree with, for example, the gun registry bill and tax cuts, but the fact is that when the majority votes yea, both in this House and in the other chamber, the bill becomes law and we are all subject to the same law. That is the way bills should be made and passed.

My real worry with the bill is the perception by Canadians of politicians and the institutions. It is fair to say, and this is truly sad, that Canadians as a whole, certainly since the 1950s, have had a declining respect for politicians and parliamentary institutions. I am not gladdened by this at all. We should all be sad and think about what we can do to change this.

What can we do to change that? We should not implement a process such as this to implement pay increases for ourselves. My main concern with this whole issue is the process. We took a report that was tabled just recently, introduced a bill shortly thereafter, debated the bill for less than three days and will soon be voting on it and passing it into law. Most Canadians must be wondering how we can possibly do this.

In my view, even with respect to our party policy, why not let the report come out in the spring, let the commissioners go across the country during the summer to explain what MPs do and the value of their work, introduce a bill in normal time in the fall, have a full House debate on that bill and then implement it if it is fair? That seems to me to be the more reasonable and rational way to do this, not to pass it just before the summer recess.

The optics of this are terrible. Most Canadians are upset about the fact that we are voting on our own pay raise just before the summer recess. We are adjourning after a very controversial period because of a lot of statements made by certain MPs from all sides of the House. I am not trying to highlight that because it is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that we are constantly highlighting MPs who make an offhand remark or an off colour remark. We do not recognize the value of MPs from all parties who do work hard. We should have used the opportunity to highlight those things but we did not.

One other aspect that I am really displeased with is the fact that the bill took the commission's report and changed it.

I recently met the former premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed. I asked him how he dealt with this issue in Alberta. He said that he had set up a commission telling the people beforehand that whatever they recommended would be implemented, that the lawmakers would not have a chance to amend it, and that it would simply be implemented as is.

Bill C-28 would change the accrual rate for pensions from 2.5% to 3%. It would change the retroactive pay from April 1 to January 1. It would implement a 20% pay raise and has an opt in provision that was not in the report at all, which to me is the true travesty of the bill.

How do we deal with MP salaries? How should we deal with them?

First, similar to what former Premier Lougheed recommended to me, we should do what the Canadian Alliance suggests which is parliamentary compensation should be recommended by an independent commission according to private sector standards. Second, the decision of parliament would be implemented after a subsequent election. That would take the conflict of interest completely out of the issue and mean that I, as a parliamentarian, would not have to sit here and wonder whether I could stand up and vote against the bill or whether I could opt in or not opt in, and go through these decisions.

I knew before I ran what the compensation for an MP would be. Why should I be voting on a pay raise six months after being elected for the first time?

We should really link the whole issue to trying to raise the esteem of parliament and parliamentarians in the minds of Canadians. We could have used this as an opportunity to do so, but sadly I do not think we have. I know when I go back, I am going to see more disappointment on the faces of Canadians. It will not increase the esteem of Canadians for their parliamentary institutions and that is a true tragedy of the bill.

The last thing I want to recommend, in terms of any pay raises for ourselves, is that we should always tie it to recognizing our worth as MPs, but moreover tie it to reforming parliament itself so that we truly empower MPs and send a signal to Canadians that their MPs are working very much on their behalf, before any pay increases are implemented.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thought it a good idea to speak today on a topic that is receiving a lot of press and on which all Canadians, almost without exception, have an opinion.

I will begin by making it clear that I intend to support this bill. I supported it at second reading and it is my firm intention to support it at third reading a bit later on today.

At the appropriate time, when there are forms to fill in, I intend to opt in to the new pay plan set out in Bill C-28. I want this to be perfectly clear.

I wish to point out that some 30 people have contacted me by telephone or in writing at my office this week. A few of them were clearly in favour of the bill but most were against it. Among the latter, reaction was divided.

Almost half of those against it oppose it for procedural reasons such as retroactivity or application. They would like to see it apply to the 38th parliament, not the 37th. They are also unhappy at how quickly Bill C-28 is being passed or how soon the increase will take effect. Some of them would like it to be phased in over two, three or even four years. The rest are simply against it.

Very few mentioned the opting in clause. This clause has led to another kind of discussion in the debate. Yesterday we learned that this clause would be permanent. I hope that, indeed, during the 38th parliament, if members get re-elected who had chosen not to adhere to the plan, this situation can be corrected to make things fair. I am also taking a stand on this issue.

I would like to elaborate on the arguments that we heard in support of the bill. We heard several. Comparisons were made with the business world, among others.

Two weeks ago, the Ottawa Business Journal had two full pages listing the salaries of the heads of public corporations in the region. Their salaries ranged from $100,000 to $300,000. Some people earn several millions per year. I do not think it is appropriate to make this comparison.

The shareholders of a publicly traded company make a choice. They choose to join in and to buy shares, to become shareholders. By contrast, taxpayers, who will pay our salaries, do not make a choice. It is something that is imposed on them.

Our salaries were also compared to those of athletes. It was even said that the Prime Minister is paid less than the minimum wages paid in the National Hockey League. We were told that the average salary in several professional leagues is one million dollars.

I do not think the comparison is appropriate because the salaries paid to these players are generated through revenues that the public is not required to contribute to.

Some also mentioned unions. In yesterday evening's news on the CBC, Mr. Lumley said that there are 200 union leaders in Ontario who are paid over $100,000. Again, this is not a perfectly appropriate comparison, but it is somewhat more, because the Rand formula requires all members of a union to pay union dues, but it is not a good example.

Then arguments such as “We work impossible hours” were used. It is true our hours are long. A typical day for a member may be 12 or 14 hours, easily, five, six and sometimes seven days a week. However, with all the respect due my colleagues, I do not believe this justifies what Bill C-28 is proposing. My father-in-law was a taxi driver and he worked 12 hours a day regularly. He worked as long as I do, so this is not an issue of hours of work. I have a bit of a hard time with this argument.

I would like people to not take the issue of hours of work into account because in my opinion it is not a good reason for voting in favour of the bill, even though we do work long hours. We all wanted this job, so we must not complain.

Others cite pressure. It is true that there is pressure. Often we are bombarded with requests of all sorts: requests for help or ways to find funding for a given project. This sort of pressure is perhaps unique but in our society others who are policemen, nurses, teachers or air traffic controllers are also subject to pressure unique to them but real nevertheless. Once again this argument does not hold as justification for supporting this bill.

Where I am coming from instead is what we do as legislators. The three branches of government, the judicial, the executive and the legislative, are what I believe we should be using as a comparison basis. It seems quite clear that over the last 30 years we have systematically undervalued the role of the legislator in our society and in the Government of Canada.

I believe that if one were to stop and think about that, we would see not only rationale but some encouragement to do what is being asked of us to do by voting for Bill C-28, which is to establish a basis of equilibrium between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. Not to do that is to undermine the importance of the legislators of this House and of the other House in the life of our country and how we govern ourselves.

Some numbers have been given that show in the sixties the role of the MP was valued slightly more than judges. However over the last 35 years it has been the opposite, and the role of the MP vis-à-vis a comparison to the judicial side has been much less. It has been the same with the executive. We heard numbers that show what the top executives are paid. I am talking about a public executive, not someone in the private sector, whether judicial, legislative or executive who is funded by the same taxpayer. That range is to $375,000.

If we look at what the legislators were valued at, then we see a huge discrepancy. I think that is the genesis of some of the discredit that seems to be attributed to members of parliament, legislators and senators. It behooves us to turn that around because the legislative function in a government is essential. It is a basis of democracy. We have the role of legislators, and we also have the surveillance role.

The importance of the legislative and monitoring roles of this House and its members cannot be neglected. We have officers of the House, such as the Auditor General of Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner, who report to the House. Everything turns upon the House and the legislative process, which naturally are responsible for setting the policies of the nation, the country, through the process of drafting and passing bills, but also through monitoring.

I believe it was vital for a start to be made at striking a balance between the value assigned to the judiciary, the legislative and the executive branches. There is nothing personal involved here. The voters will decide who is sent here or not in each riding.

I believe that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to attribute to the legislative branch a value comparable to that attributed to the judiciary and the executive branch. The legislative function of this chamber and the other is essential to the process of government, the democracy of this country. It would be regrettable if this trend were allowed to continue.

We have the opportunity to reverse it by supporting this bill. I would invite all my colleagues to do so, so that we may recognize and enhance the value and importance of the legislative process and those involved in that process.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Sometimes we say things when we do not have all the facts, and I need to make an apology. I stated in my speech that the vice-chair of the finance committee was only there half of the time. He corrected me by saying he was there 80% of the time, and I need to apologize because it was false information.

I also made mention of the vice-chairman not being at a meeting. I was not aware that he is facing a difficult family situation, and I apologize to him for that as well.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I thank the hon. member for his intervention and understanding but it is not a point of order.

Message From The SenateGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and I will give my reasons for it.

The reasons are simple. There really is no need to make the bill retroactive to January 1. It could have been made effective either at the date of royal assent of the bill or, as we had recommended, the day after the next election, which would have then prevented MPs from giving their own raise. That was most appropriate.

I also reject the bill on the basis that the 20% is excessive, given that all the other contracts that are being settled in the nation today are much less than that. If we look at the small pittance that seniors are given in the country, one could hardly justify giving 301 members of the House of Commons 20%, when seniors usually get less than 1% per annum.

I also take exception to the pension plan that was recommended by the commission to be 2.5%. Somehow when it got into the hands of the members on the other side it became 3%. Thus the annual amount that individuals will get ultimately is more than what they would get today given the increase in the pension amounts. That is against the recommendation of the commission.

I have been a labour negotiator for a number of years. I have negotiated labour contracts with various unions around the country and I have never seen a labour agreement that said people had to opt in and if they did not they would never get a raise again. Imagine if I sat at the table with the British Columbia Teachers' Federation or the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America or the teamsters, which I have, and said something like that? Imagine what I would be dealing with? That is the most preposterous position for anyone to take.

The government has a fiduciary responsibility as an employer. Because it is the majority government in the House, it becomes the de facto employer when it is dealing with pay and benefits. No employer in the democratic world would say that if people did not opt in the employer would establish two pension plans, two payroll systems and inequity between people undertaking the same identical jobs. It is unheard of in a democratic society. It is unheard of at a negotiating table.

I reject this. The trouble is that we are going to be made hypocrites over it if we do reject it and we end up signing into it because we would never ever get an increase again. The government wants to tell the public that people who do that are hypocrites, which is another sign that the government in its fiduciary management responsibility with pay and benefits has no integrity whatsoever.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 128Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment lost.

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

Division No. 128Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Division No. 128Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.